What is the argument from reason?

The Argument from Reason: A Critique of Naturalism

The argument from reason asserts that the existence and reliability of human reasoning undermine the philosophical framework of naturalism. Naturalism posits that everything in existence can be reduced to purely physical causes—matter and energy. This argument challenges the coherence of naturalism by asserting that if human reasoning is entirely the product of non-rational physical processes, then it cannot be trusted to yield truth. By extension, belief in naturalism itself becomes self-defeating. Thus, the argument from reason suggests that belief in naturalism contradicts the trust we place in human reason.

Defining Key Terms

1. Reason
   Reason refers to the cognitive ability to draw logical conclusions, infer truths, and distinguish between truth and error. Reason is foundational to all knowledge, as it governs the processes by which we assess evidence, draw conclusions, and evaluate claims.

2. Naturalism
   Naturalism is the worldview that all phenomena can be explained through natural causes, without recourse to supernatural entities or forces. It assumes that everything in existence is ultimately reducible to physical interactions.

3. Proper Epistemology
   Epistemology is the study of knowledge—how we know what we know. The argument from reason challenges naturalism on epistemological grounds, questioning whether human reasoning, if entirely the result of blind physical processes, can serve as a reliable source of truth.

The Core Argument: Reason Contradicts Naturalism

The argument from reason is built upon the following logical structure:

1. If naturalism is true, all human thoughts, beliefs, and reasoning processes are the result of non-rational physical causes, such as chemical reactions in the brain.

2. Non-rational physical causes cannot produce rational, truth-oriented reasoning. At best, they can produce reasoning that is advantageous for survival but not necessarily aligned with truth.

3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, there is no basis for trusting human reasoning to produce true beliefs—including the belief in naturalism itself.

The core claim is that naturalism undermines the reliability of human reasoning, rendering all beliefs, including naturalism, unjustified.

A Biblical Perspective: The Role of the Mind in Divine Revelation

From a Christian worldview, reason is a gift from God that reflects His rational nature. Scripture affirms that human reasoning, while corrupted by sin, is capable of discerning truth when aligned with God’s revelation:

• Isaiah 1:18: “Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord.
  God invites His people to use their reasoning faculties to understand His will.

• Romans 1:19–20:
  “Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
  Paul argues that the evidence for God’s existence is apparent through creation, appealing to human reason to discern divine truths.

• Colossians 2:3: “In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
  Christ is the ultimate source of all true knowledge, grounding reason in the divine.

In contrast to naturalism, the Christian worldview affirms that reason is rooted in the divine nature of God, who created humans with the capacity to think, reason, and discern truth. Thus, reason is not a random byproduct of evolutionary processes but a reflection of God’s image in humanity (Genesis 1:27).

Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

A notable iteration of the argument from reason is Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). Plantinga contends that if naturalism and evolution are both true, then human cognitive faculties are shaped solely by survival, not truth. As a result, there is no reason to trust that these faculties produce true beliefs.

An Illustrative Example

Consider a hypothetical individual who believes they must avoid bright lights because they think light will melt their skin. This belief is false, but it leads the person to avoid harmful UV exposure, thereby enhancing survival. In this scenario, survival is achieved despite the belief being untrue.

Plantinga argues that if evolution prioritizes survival over truth, it undermines the reliability of human reasoning. This extends to the belief in naturalism itself, creating a self-defeating system.

Responses to Common Criticisms

1. The Emergence Defense
   Critics of the argument from reason often invoke the concept of emergence, claiming that complex mental properties, such as reason, can arise from simpler physical processes. However, this explanation fails to address the core issue: if reason is reducible to physical processes, it lacks the transcendence necessary to guarantee truth. Emergence does not solve the problem of trustworthiness; it merely restates the problem in different terms.

2. The Claim of Circular Reasoning
   Some critics argue that the argument from reason is itself circular, as it presupposes the validity of reason to challenge naturalism. However, this critique misunderstands the argument. The argument does not deny the validity of reason; rather, it critiques naturalism’s inability to justify the validity of reason.

Strengths of the Argument from Reason

1. Consistency with Human Experience
   The argument aligns with our intuitive trust in reason as a reliable guide to truth. People naturally assume their reasoning processes are trustworthy, which is difficult to reconcile with naturalism.

2. Philosophical Robustness
   The argument has been articulated by renowned thinkers, including C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, and Victor Reppert. Its critiques of naturalism are well-supported within philosophical discourse.

3. Biblical Resonance
   The argument aligns with biblical teaching that God is the ultimate source of truth and reason. It challenges the naturalistic worldview that denies God’s existence and revelation.

Limitations of the Argument

While the argument from reason is compelling, it has limitations:

1. Scope
   The argument critiques naturalism but does not, by itself, prove the existence of God or the truth of Christianity.

2. Accessibility
   The philosophical nature of the argument may not resonate with those unfamiliar with epistemology or metaphysics.

3. Dependence on Assumptions
   The argument assumes that truth and survival are distinct goals, which some critics contest.

Conclusion

The argument from reason demonstrates that naturalism, as a worldview, undermines the reliability of human reasoning. By showing that naturalism is self-defeating, the argument opens the door for alternative worldviews that can account for the existence and reliability of reason. From a Christian perspective, the argument aligns with the biblical teaching that reason is a gift from God, designed to lead humanity to truth. As Paul writes in Romans 12:2: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (NKJV). In the end, the argument from reason is a powerful tool for challenging atheistic worldviews and affirming the rationality of faith in God.