[TOWER]

Let's pretend that this is the case -- that agents are completely defined by natural law. This completely undermines any sort of rational thought, because it means that our thoughts are not controllable, but entirely constrained based upon chance and natural law. If this is the case, then we have no reason to believe our thoughts -- they are merely uncontrollable products of happenstance.

That's a pretty big leap in logic. As other posters have pointed out, chaos (or natural law + random chance) does produce order and elegance. Thus, our thoughts are not automatically irrational just because they might be the result of natural occurances.

[johnnyb_61820]

"Thus, our thoughts are not automatically irrational just because they might be the result of natural occurances."

Assuming you are correct (and I think you are not), you would still not have any reason to believe that they are rational. Likewise, you would be in principle not even able to make a determination that X or Y is rational or irrational -- it would be decided for you by chance and nature. If you assume that some people are rational and others are irrational, you would have to say that those who are rational or irrational have (a) no control in whether they are rational or irrational, and (b) no control in whether you think they are rational or irrational. Which means that any determination of "rational" and "irrational" is ultimately meaningless, because we don't have control of either being rational or detecting it.