Problems with the "Box"

Q:  What are the philosophic problems naturalism has when trying to explain reality, truth, and knowledge ?


A:   Well, Let's take this step by step. First, naturalism claims that nothing exists outside the realm of the physical. So therefore, logic, numbers, ideas, even the thoughts inside your brain, are unreal and cannot be trusted. 
      Second, they believe that that which is proven by science and taught by science constitutes as knowledge. Problem is, science is changing so constantly that theory and even law morphs more quickly than theorists can keep up with. Things once considered fact like true Darwinian Evolution are fading out and dying. That means there is no real root to that which is knowledge, and the word knowledge itself loses meaning. Everything everybody thinks they know about anything could be destroyed in a moment. So basically we live in a knowledge-less, truthless void. 
      Thirdly, Naturalists believe that all of life is a game of cause and effect. That is, there is no one thing that happens without having being caused by something else and without, in turn, causing something else to happen. Nothing happens in and of itself and even Humans are part of that little game. Therefore, the reasons humans are as they are is due to the various influences of life upon their person, and there is no such thing as free will. Well, were that true there would be no point to living. Humans are not unique, are not special, they're not even "gods". They're just chemicals coming together and falling apart. Naturalism.org states that "Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical system, the brain and the body." So in a Naturalist's reality and truth of self, there really isn't a self, which completely negates any importance of life as a human, and limits life to monotonous, robotic functions, which experience of life itself negates and confuses. Besides, you cannot explain thoughts with chemicals, nobody has understood how synapses = thoughts. 
        Fourthly, and probably second-most-stupidly, Naturalism claims that there is nothing humans must answer to when it comes to morals, as they are not responsible for their actions. Their actions are the reactions of internal and external "Causes" defined earlier. However, at the same time naturalism says we need to try to temper people to adhering to actions deemed acceptable. Naturalism.org says "Naturalism doesn’t undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by science. "   However, if their first statement was also true, that humans cannot be held responsible for their actions, and life was but cause and effect, there is nothing moral to begin with; the word "Morals" looses it's meaning. And besides, how could anybody have any sense of anything being "acceptable" were there not some sort of underlying moral conscience anyway ? They have no right to deem anything wrong, if A: it could not have been avoided, taking the responsibility from the human, and B: is simply a cause of something else in the big game of life. Nothing is wrong or right in reality, in truth, it just is. Yet they try to uphold responsibility and morality....
         Fifthly, just read anything they post ever, and you will find contradictions that don't make any sense. For instance: (again from Naturalism.org) "We need not appeal to a supernatural standard of ethical conduct to know that in general it’s wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, torture, or otherwise treat people in ways we’d rather not be treated. Our naturally endowed empathetic concern for others and our hard-wired penchant for cooperation and reciprocity get us what we most want as social creatures: to flourish as individuals within a community."  ....considering previous points, yeah have fun with that.