Worldviews

A worldview is, quite literally, a view of the world. It is the comprehensive framework of beliefs and assumptions through which an individual interprets and interacts with reality.

Think of it as a pair of glasses. The lenses you wear determine what you see and how you see it. If your lenses are red, the world looks red; if they are cracked, the world looks fragmented. Similarly, your worldview shapes your understanding of everything from politics and morality to the origin of the universe.

The Core Components

Philosophers often break a worldview down into how it answers "The Big Questions" of life. Every coherent worldview attempts to answer these four fundamental categories:

1) Origin (Where did we come from?):

• Is the universe a result of random chance, or was it designed?
• Are humans merely advanced animals, or do they possess a unique soul or spirit?

2) Meaning (Why are we here?):

• Is there an objective purpose to life, or do we create our own meaning?
• Does human life have intrinsic value?

3) Morality (How should we live?):

• Are right and wrong objective truths (like math), or are they social constructs/personal preferences?
• Who or what determines what is "good"?

4) Destiny (Where are we going?):

• What happens after death? Is it extinction, reincarnation, or an afterlife?
• Is history moving toward a specific goal, or is it cyclical/random?

Why It Matters

You might not consciously think about your worldview every day, but it drives your behavior.

• It acts as a filter: When you watch the news or read a book, your worldview helps you decide what is true, what is important, and what is noise.

• It guides decisions: Your beliefs about morality and purpose dictate how you spend your money, how you vote, and how you treat others.

• It provides consistency: Humans crave logical consistency. A worldview helps you connect disparate ideas (e.g., your view on science and your view on ethics) into a unified understanding of life.

Common Analogies

A Map: A worldview is like a mental map of reality. It tells you where things are located and how to get where you want to go. If your map is accurate, you can navigate life successfully. If it is inaccurate, you may get lost or crash.

A Foundation: Just as a building rests on a foundation, your life rests on your worldview. If the foundation is shaky, the structure of your life (decisions, relationships, mental health) may be unstable.

Summary of Major Categories

Here are the major worldviews that shape human history and culture:

1. Theism (Monotheism)
Core Belief: An infinite, personal God exists and created the universe. This God is distinct from creation (transcendent) but acts within it (immanent).
* Ultimate Reality: God (personal, eternal, all-powerful).
* Humanity: Humans are created in God’s image and have intrinsic value and purpose.
* Morality: Right and wrong are objective, grounded in God’s character.
* Examples: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

2. Naturalism (Materialism)
Core Belief: The physical universe is all that exists. There is no God, soul, or supernatural realm. Everything can be explained by natural laws and physics.
* Ultimate Reality: Matter and energy (the cosmos).
* Humanity: Humans are complex biological machines that evolved through natural selection. Consciousness is a byproduct of the brain.
* Morality: Morality is subjective or a social contract evolved for survival; there is no objective "good" or "evil" outside of human opinion.
* Examples: Secular Humanism, Atheism, Marxism.

3. Pantheism
Core Belief: God and the universe are the same thing. All is one. There is no distinction between the Creator and the creation; everything is divine.
* Ultimate Reality: An impersonal spiritual force or energy (Brahman, the Tao, the One).
* Humanity: Humans are part of the divine whole. The problem is that we are trapped in the illusion of being individuals.
* Destiny: The goal is usually to escape the cycle of reincarnation and merge back into the oneness of the universe (Nirvana/Moksha).
* Examples: Hinduism, Buddhism (some forms), Taoism, New Age Spirituality.

4. Deism
Core Belief: A personal God created the universe and set up natural laws but does not intervene in it. God is like a watchmaker who winds the watch and walks away.
* Ultimate Reality: A transcendent Creator who is distant.
* Humanity: Humans are rational beings who must use reason to figure out life, as there is no divine revelation (no Bible, Quran, etc.).
* Morality: Based on reason and nature, not divine command.
* Examples: The philosophy of many Enlightenment thinkers (e.g., Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson).

5. Postmodernism
Core Belief: There is no single "Big Story" (metanarrative) that explains everything for everyone. Truth is relative to the individual or culture.
* Ultimate Reality: Reality is socially constructed by language and power structures. "True" is just what a society decides is true at the time.
* Humanity: Humans are products of their culture, language, and social standing.
* Morality: Values are subjective and culturally relative; tolerance is often viewed as the highest virtue (paradoxically).
Quick Comparison

James Sire - The Universe Next Door.

The classification system popularized by James Sire in his foundational book, 

While worldviews can be grouped into broad families (like Theism or Naturalism), Sire breaks them down into nine distinct variations to better explain the nuances of Western and Eastern thought, in his book The Universe Next Door. This is the standard list used in many philosophy and comparative religion courses.

Here are the 9 major worldviews according to this framework:

1. Christian Theism
* Core Idea: An infinite, personal God created the universe, humans are made in His image, and He has actively revealed Himself to humanity (specifically through Jesus).
* Distinction: Unlike Deism, God is involved. Unlike Islam, God is Trinitarian and incarnational.

2. Deism
* Core Idea: God created the universe but then left it alone to run by natural laws.
* Distinction: God is the "Clockmaker." He is transcendent (separate from the world) but not immanent (involved in the world). There are no miracles and no divine revelation.

3. Naturalism
* Core Idea: Matter is all that exists. God is a projection of the human mind. The universe is a closed system of cause and effect.
* Distinction: This is the standard "scientific" worldview that denies the supernatural entirely.

4. Nihilism
* Core Idea: A strict logical conclusion of Naturalism. If there is no God and matter is all there is, then life has no objective meaning, purpose, or value.
* Distinction: It is the negation of worldview—a belief that nothing matters.

5. Existentialism
* Core Idea: Humanity finds itself in a meaningless/absurd universe (Nihilism), but we can create our own subjective meaning through free will and authentic action.
* Distinction: "Existence precedes essence." You exist first, then you define who you are. (This can be Atheistic Existentialism or Theistic Existentialism).

6. Eastern Pantheistic Monism
* Core Idea: The distinct individual (you) does not exist; only the One (Brahman/Universal Soul) exists. The goal is to pass beyond the illusion of self and merge with the One.
* Distinction: Classic Eastern thought found in many forms of Hinduism and Buddhism.

7. The New Age (Spirituality Without Religion)
* Core Idea: A syncretism (mix) of Western individualism and Eastern pantheism. The self is the ultimate reality ("I am God"), but unlike Eastern Monism, the goal is not to lose the self, but to expand it and realize one's own divinity.
* Distinction: Often involves crystals, manifestation, and the idea of a "higher consciousness."

8. Postmodernism
* Core Idea: There are no "metanarratives" (big true stories that explain everything). All truth is relative to culture and language.
* Distinction: It doesn't ask "What is real?" but rather "How does language create reality?" It is skeptical of all claims to absolute truth.

9. Islamic Theism
* Core Idea: Similar to Christian Theism in believing in one infinite, personal Creator, but strictly unitarian (no Trinity). Submission (Islam) to God's will is the highest calling.
* Distinction: Emphasizes God's sovereignty and transcendence differently than Christianity; generally views the Quran as the final revelation.

James Fodor’s RHBS Hypothesis

 James Fodor’s RHBS Hypothesis is a naturalistic framework designed to explain the historical data surrounding the origins of Christianity without appealing to a supernatural resurrection. The acronym stands for Removal (of the body), Hallucinations, Bias (cognitive), and Socialization.

The following is a structured rebuttal to this hypothesis, drawing from common arguments in historical apologetics (e.g., by scholars like Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and N.T. Wright).

1. Critique of Removal - The Empty Tomb

The "Removal" step posits that Jesus' body was not resurrected but simply moved from the tomb—likely by Joseph of Arimathea—to a secondary, permanent burial site. Critics argue this explanation fails on several historical and practical grounds.

A. The Implausibility of Joseph's Motive

The primary candidate for moving the body in Fodor's theory is Joseph of Arimathea. However, this creates a psychological contradiction:

• Pious Jew vs. Sabbath Breaker: Joseph is described as a pious, law-abiding member of the Sanhedrin. Jewish law strictly prohibited handling dead bodies on the Sabbath (which began Friday at sundown). To move the body after the initial burial would require him to either violate the Sabbath or wait until Saturday night/Sunday morning—precisely when the women arrived.

• Why Move It? If Joseph gave Jesus an honorable burial in his own new tomb (as the Gospels state), why move him later? The "criminal's graveyard" theory suggests Jesus shouldn't have been in a "honorable" tomb, but if Joseph already took the risk to ask Pilate for the body and bury him honorably, moving him to a shameful pit later makes little sense. It undoes his own act of charity.

B. The Silence of the Authorities

If the body was moved by a human agent (Joseph or the Romans), the location of the body would be known to at least one key group.

• The Logic of Self-Preservation: The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem were desperate to stop the spread of Christianity, which accused them of murdering the Messiah. If Joseph (a colleague of theirs) had moved the body, he could simply have said, "I moved him to the trench graves south of the city."

• The Failure to Exhume: The easiest way to crush the "Resurrection" message would be to produce the corpse. The fact that the High Priest and Sanhedrin never produced a body - and instead resorted to claiming the disciples stole it - strongly implies they did not know where it was.

C. The Stolen Body Propaganda

The Gospel of Matthew (28:11-15) records that the authorities bribed soldiers to say, "His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept."

• Admission of the Empty Tomb: Apologists argue this lie is historically significant because it contains an implicit admission: The tomb was empty. If the body were still there (or known to be elsewhere), they wouldn't need to invent a theft story.

• Inconsistent with Removal: If the authorities (or Joseph) had moved the body officially, the "official story" would simply be "We moved him." The need to invent a theft conspiracy suggests they were genuinely baffled by the missing body.

D. Practical & Logistical Hurdles

Moving the body wasn't just a matter of picking it up; it involved significant physical obstacles.

• The Stone: Archaeological evidence suggests rolling stones for tombs were massive (often 1-2 tons). Moving one would be noisy and require multiple men, making a "secret" removal highly difficult in a crowded city during Passover.

• The Grave Clothes: The Gospel of John (20:6-7) reports the linen wrappings were left lying in the tomb, with the face cloth folded separately. A grave robber or someone moving a body would essentially never unwrap a bloody, spiced corpse before carrying it. They would take the body and the wrappings. The presence of the abandoned linens suggests the body passed through them, not that it was carried out of them.

E. Lack of Secondary Burial Evidence

First-century Jewish burial customs often involved a two-step process: (1) Flesh decays in a tomb, (2) Bones are collected into an ossuary (bone box) a year later.

• Too Soon for Ossuaries: Fodor's "Removal" requires an immediate secondary burial (within hours or days). This contradicts Jewish custom. The body would need to decompose for a year before being moved to an ossuary.

• No Venerated Tomb: If the disciples secretly knew where the "real" body was (or if Joseph did), that site would likely become a secret shrine. Yet, there is zero historical trace of any tomb of Jesus being venerated other than the empty one.

Summary Argument Against Removal of the Body

For the "Removal" theory to work, Joseph of Arimathea (a pious man) must have broken Jewish law to move a body he just honored, hidden it so well that neither the disciples nor his own Sanhedrin colleagues could find it, and then remained silent while a massive religious movement based on a "lie" exploded in his own city - a movement that eventually led to the persecution and death of people he likely knew. Critics find this chain of events psychologically and historically implausible.

2. Critique of Hallucinations  - The Appearances

The "Hallucinations" step of the RHBS hypothesis suggests that the disciples’ belief in the resurrection was sparked by grief-induced hallucinations, which they mistook for the actual presence of Jesus. Critics argue this explanation contradicts both clinical understanding of hallucinations and the specific historical claims of the Gospels.

A. The Implausibility of Shared Hallucinations

The most significant hurdle for the hallucination theory is the claim that groups of people saw Jesus simultaneously.

• Hallucinations are Individual: Clinical psychology defines hallucinations as "individual, internal experiences," comparable to dreams. They happen in the mind of a single person.

• The Group Dream Analogy: Just as it is impossible for multiple people to fall asleep and share the exact same dream, it is astronomically low for multiple individuals (such as Peter, the Twelve, or the 500) to simultaneously project the same hallucination of Jesus. To explain the group appearances reported in the Gospels, Fodor must posit a mass delusion event that lacks clinical precedent.

B. The Physicality of the Encounters

The specific nature of the interactions recorded in the Gospels is incompatible with visual or auditory hallucinations.

• Multi-Sensory Evidence: The disciples did not just "see" Jesus; the text points out that they reported eating with him, touching his wounds, and holding long conversations. Hallucinations generally do not allow for this kind of sustained, tangible interaction (e.g., watching a figure eat food).

• The Legend Defense: To maintain the hallucination theory, Fodor is forced to argue that these specific physical details (like Thomas touching the wounds) are later "legendary embellishments" rather than historical facts. Critics argue this is a circular dismissal of the primary source documents simply because they contradict the naturalistic hypothesis.

C. Inconsistency with Contagious Hysteria

While mass hysteria or social delusions can occur, they typically require a specific, highly charged environment. The resurrection appearances do not fit this mold.

• No Uniform Pattern: The text highlights that the appearances occurred in widely varying contexts: to different people, both indoors and outdoors, and at different times of day.

• Lack of Hysteria Markers: This variance lacks the "uniformity usually seen in contagious social hysteria or shared delusions". A shared delusion typically happens in a controlled, high-pressure setting (like a religious frenzy), not sporadically to different groups in calm settings (like eating breakfast by a lake).

Summary Argument Against Hallucinations

For the Hallucinations theory to work, one must accept a medical anomaly: that multiple people projected the exact same complex hallucination simultaneously, repeatedly, and in diverse settings. Furthermore, one must assume that the specific details of physical contact and conversation in the historical records are fabrications. Critics argue it is more rational to believe the accounts reflect a physical reality than a never document, before or since, series of matching mental projections.

3. Critique of Bias  - Cognitive Distortion

The Bias step of the RHBS hypothesis argues that cognitive biases—specifically confirmation bias (seeing what you expect to see) and cognitive dissonance (mental stress from conflicting beliefs)—led the disciples to "reframe" their grief into a belief in the resurrection. Critics argue that this psychological explanation fails when applied to key individuals and the cultural context of the time.

A. The Problem of Hostile Witnesses (Paul)

The "Bias" theory assumes that the witnesses had a predisposition to believe Jesus was the Messiah. While this might apply to Peter or John, it completely fails to explain Paul (Saul of Tarsus).

• Negative Bias: Paul was not a grieving follower; he was a zealous Pharisee and a violent persecutor of the early church. His "bias" was strongly anti-Christian. He believed Jesus was a false teacher and a heretic cursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23).

• Conversion Against Interest: Confirmation bias reinforces existing beliefs; it does not typically cause a sudden, radical 180-degree turn in a hostile opponent. For Paul to convert, he had to overcome his deep-seated theological training and social standing. The Bias theory cannot account for why a happy, successful persecutor would hallucinate the very person he hated and then dedicate his life to him.

B. The Problem of Skeptical Witnesses (James)

Similar to Paul, James (the brother of Jesus) presents a hurdle for the bias hypothesis.

• Prior Skepticism: The Gospels report that during Jesus' ministry, his brothers did not believe in him. In ancient collectivist cultures, it was shameful for a family to reject the eldest son's claims, yet James remained a skeptic.

• No "Grief" Motive: Unlike the twelve disciples, James was not a devoted follower who had "left everything" for Jesus. He didn't have the same level of cognitive dissonance (the need to justify a wasted life) that Peter might have had.

• Radical Transformation: After the crucifixion, James suddenly becomes a leader of the church and is eventually martyred for his belief in his brother's resurrection. Critics argue the most parsimonious explanation for this change is the one Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 15:7: "Then he appeared to James".

C. Wrong Jewish Expectations

Fodor’s argument relies on the idea that the disciples "invented" the idea of resurrection to cope with Jesus' death. However, this assumes they had the theological categories to do so. Historians argue they did not.

• Resurrection was End Times Only: First-century Jews believed in a resurrection, but only as a general event for everyone at the end of history (Daniel 12:2). They had no concept of a single Messiah dying and rising individually in the middle of history.

• The Martyr Option: If the disciples were suffering from cognitive dissonance, the culturally natural way to resolve it would be to conclude that Jesus was a martyr (like the Maccabean martyrs) or that his spirit had been vindicated by God.

• Alien Theology: To invent the idea that "the Messiah has resurrected bodily now" was to invent a completely new theological category. Critics argue that hallucinations and biases generally project images from one's own culture; they do not create complex new theologies that contradict cultural upbringing. If they were hallucinating, they should have seen Jesus "in heaven" or "in Abraham's bosom" - not walking around on earth with a physical body.

Summary Argument Against Bias

The Bias theory works best for people who already want to believe. However, it crumbles when applied to enemies (Paul) and skeptics (James) who had no desire for the resurrection to be true. Furthermore, it fails to explain why Jewish disciples would hallucinate a type of resurrection (individual, bodily, pre-End Times) that their religion and culture taught them was impossible.

4. Critique of Socialization  - Legendary Development

The "Socialization" step of the RHBS hypothesis argues that after the initial hallucinations, the group dynamics of the early disciples worked to suppress doubt and standardize the resurrection story. Fodor suggests that through conversation and social reinforcement, a messy, confused memory was polished into a consistent narrative of a physical resurrection. Critics argue that the historical timeline and the pressure of persecution make this "legendary development" impossible.

A. The Timeline is Too Short (The Early Creed)

The "Socialization" theory relies on the idea that stories change and grow over time (like a game of "telephone"). However, historical evidence suggests the core resurrection narrative was fixed almost immediately.

• The 1 Corinthians 15 Creed: The text points to the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, which Paul recites. Scholars across the spectrum, including skeptics like Gerd Lüdemann, date this creed to within 3–5 years of the crucifixion.

• No Time for Legend: Legends typically require generations to develop, as eyewitnesses must die off before invented details can replace historical memory. The fact that a formalized creed listing specific appearances (to Cephas, the Twelve, the 500) existed almost immediately suggests the story was "locked in" from the start, leaving no window for the gradual "socialization" Fodor describes.

B. The Price of the Lie (Persecution vs. Social Pressure)

Fodor argues that social reinforcement (the desire to fit in and agree with the group) kept the disciples from questioning the story. Critics argue this ignores the brutal reality of their situation.

• Social Reinforcement has Limits: Social pressure is effective in comfortable, insular groups (like modern cults) where agreeing with the leader brings status and safety. It is far less effective when agreeing with the group brings imprisonment, beatings, and death.

• The Break Point: If the resurrection were merely a "socially constructed lie" or a fragile exaggeration, the intense pressure of persecution would have cracked it. In high-stakes interrogations or under the threat of execution, "noble lies" usually crumble as individuals seek to save themselves. The fact that none of the key leaders "broke" or confessed that they were making it up suggests they were convinced by a reality they could not deny, rather than a social agreement they felt pressured to uphold.

C. The Presence of Eyewitness Guardrails

The Socialization theory assumes the disciples could freely invent or modify the story to make it sound better. However, they were preaching in Jerusalem, where the events happened, surrounded by people who were there.

• Correcting the Narrative: The text implies that "historical memory" was still active. If a small group tried to "socialize" a story that Jesus ate fish with them or appeared to 500 people, the living eyewitnesses (both friendly and hostile) served as a check. You cannot "socially reinforce" a fiction when the community around you has the knowledge to falsify it.

Summary Argument Against Socialization

For the "Socialization" theory to work, one must believe that a group of frightened people invented a complex theology, formalized it into a creed within months, and then unanimously held to that "social construct" even as they were tortured and killed for it. Critics argue that the Resurrection Hypothesis is the only explanation strong enough to account for this immediate, unshakeable, and life-altering conviction.

Summary: The Perfect Storm Objection

The primary weakness of the RHBS hypothesis is that it requires a "conspiracy of unlikely events." For RHBS to work, you need:

1. Joseph to move the body secretly.

2. AND multiple disciples to independently hallucinate.

3. AND a hostile persecutor (Paul) to hallucinate the same figure.

4. AND a skeptical brother (James) to hallucinate the same figure.

5. AND a social group to unanimously agree on a theology (bodily resurrection) that contradicted their cultural upbringing.

Here is an expanded analysis of why critics view the RHBS hypothesis as a "conspiracy of unlikely events."

The core argument here is statistical and probabilistic: while a skeptic might argue that one of these events is possible (e.g., a hallucination), the odds of all five occurring in the exact sequence necessary to launch Christianity are vanishingly small.

A. The Improbability of the Secret Removal

For the first step to work, Joseph of Arimathea (or a similar figure) must act completely out of character.

• The Contradiction: He must be pious enough to request the body for proper burial, yet impious enough to violate Sabbath laws and Jewish custom to move it later.

• The Perfect Silence: He then has to maintain this secret perfectly, even as the city erupts in chaos. He must be willing to let the disciples (whom he knows are wrong) be persecuted and killed for a lie he could expose with a single sentence. Critics argue that human nature rarely holds secrets this tight when lives are at stake.

B. The Anomaly of Group Hallucinations

The second "storm" factor is the medical impossibility of the disciples' experiences.

• Defying Clinical Definitions: Hallucinations are individual mental events, like dreams. For Peter, the Twelve, and the 500 to see the same thing is as unlikely as a whole room of people having the exact same dream at the same time.

• Multi-Sensory Coincidence: They didn't just see a figure; they claimed to touch wounds and eat fish. For the RHBS theory to hold, the group must have collectively hallucinated these specific, tangible details simultaneously.

C. The Psychological Reversal of Paul

The third factor requires a hostile witness to experience a confirmation bias for a belief he hated.

• The Anti-Bias Problem: Paul was a happy, successful persecutor. He had no grief, no cognitive dissonance, and no desire to join the church.  It contradicts everything known about how psychology and bias work.

D. The Conversion of James

The fourth factor involves James, the skeptical brother of Jesus.

• Family Skepticism: James rejected Jesus during his life. He wasn't a follower. Yet, he suddenly became the leader of the church and died for the belief that his brother was God.

• The Missing Link: RHBS offers no clear reason for this change. The "Perfect Storm" objection notes that we have to simply assume James had a similar breakdown/hallucination as the disciples, despite having a completely different starting mindset.

E. The Impossible Consensus

Finally, the group had to agree on a theological explanation that made no sense to them culturally.

• Inventing a New Category: First-century Jews did not believe in an individual, bodily resurrection before the end of time. If they were hallucinating, they should have seen Jesus as a ghost or a spirit in heaven.

• Unanimous Agreement: Instead, this disparate group—fishermen, tax collectors, former enemies, and skeptics—all agreed on a heretical new idea: that the Messiah had bodily risen now. Critics argue that without a physical reality to force this conclusion, the group would have fractured into different interpretations (some saying he was a ghost, others saying he was an angel) rather than holding to a unified, dangerous creed.

Conclusion: Occam’s Razor

The "Perfect Storm" objection essentially appeals to Occam's Razor: Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.

• RHBS Hypothesis: Requires five separate, highly improbable psychological and physical anomalies to happen by chance in quick succession.

• Resurrection Hypothesis: Posits one single cause (Jesus rose from the dead) that explains all five data points instantly (the tomb was empty because he left; they saw him because he was there; Paul and James converted because they met him).

Critics of Fodor's RHBS Hypothesis conclude that a historical Resurrection is the simpler explanation because it doesn't rely on a chain of increasingly unlikely coincidences. Additionally, it accounts for all these data points (the empty tomb, the conversion of enemies, the origin of the belief) with a single causal agent, rather than relying on a string of unrelated psychological and physical anomalies.

Metaethics - an overview

 Metaethics—the study of what morality actually is (rather than just which actions are right or wrong).

Here is a breakdown of the common views, organized by how they answer the question: "Are moral facts real?"

Moral Realism (The "Objective" View)

This view holds that moral facts exist independently of our opinions, much like scientific facts (e.g., gravity or the shape of the earth).

• The Core Belief: "Killing is wrong" is a fact that is true regardless of what anyone thinks or feels about it. If the whole world voted that killing was okay, the Moral Realist would say the whole world is simply mistaken.

• Analogy: Math. $2+2=4$ is true whether you like it or not.

Moral Anti-Realism (The "Subjective" Views)

This is the broad category for views that deny that objective moral facts exist. It is usually broken down into three specific positions:

A. Moral Relativism (Cultural or Individual)

This is the most common alternative view. It holds that moral statements can be true, but only relative to a specific standpoint.

• The Core Belief: "Killing is wrong" is true for us because our culture says so, but it might be "right" for a different culture (e.g., the Aztecs practicing sacrifice). There is no "God's eye view" to say which culture is correct.

• Analogy: Etiquette or Law. Driving on the left side of the road is "right" in the UK but "wrong" in the US. Neither is objectively correct by the laws of physics; it depends on where you are.

B. Non-Cognitivism (Emotivism)

This view argues that moral statements aren't facts at all—they are expressions of emotion.

• The Core Belief: When you say "Killing is wrong," you aren't stating a fact. You are essentially screaming "Boo on killing!" or expressing a negative feeling. It is neither true nor false; it is just an emotional outburst or a command.

• Analogy: Cheering for a sports team. Yelling "Go Team!" isn't true or false; it's an expression of support.

Error Theory (Moral Nihilism)

This is the skeptical view that moral talk is trying to state facts, but it always fails because moral properties don't exist.

• The Core Belief: "Killing is wrong" is a false statement. But "Killing is right" is also a false statement. Morality is a fiction we invented, like witches or unicorns.

• Analogy: Atheism regarding mythology. If someone asks, "Is Zeus stronger than Apollo?", the Error Theorist says, "Neither, because Greek gods don't exist."

---

Quick Comparison Table

View	Are moral claims True/False?	Is morality objective?	"Murder is wrong" means...
Moral Realism	Yes	Yes	"It is an objective fact that murder is wrong."
Moral Relevatism	Yes	No (Relative)	"My culture/society disapproves of murder."
Non Cognitivism	No	No	"Murder? Boo! Don't do it!"
Error Theory	No (All false)	No	"We made up the concept of 'wrongness'; it doesn't exist."

"Soft" Realism (The Middle Ground)

True because we prove/construct them; yes, but

There is a nuanced view often called Constructivism (associated with philosophers like Kant). It argues that morality is "constructed" by human reason. It isn't a floating physical fact like an atom (Anti-Realism), but because all rational humans must agree on it to function, it acts as if it is objective (Realism).

The "Hard" Realist View (Metaphysical Objectivity)

Morality is objective because it exists independently of human minds, like a rock, a planet, or a law of physics.  If all humans vanished tomorrow, the fact "Murder is wrong" would still float around the universe, just like the law of gravity would.

The "Soft" Realist / Constructivist View (Rational Objectivity)

Morality is objective because it is the necessary outcome of correct reasoning. It doesn't exist "out there" like a rock; it exists like a math proof. If all humans vanished, morality would vanish (because there are no minds to reason). However, as long as rational minds exist, there is only one correct answer to moral questions.

It's still objective, since it's not a matter of opinion or culture. If you disagree with a moral fact, you aren't just different you are irrational. You have made a logic error.

Moral Realism - Defended

Moral Realism - Defended

The concept of Moral Realism is the philosophical position that morality is objective, much like science or mathematics. It holds that there are moral facts about the world that are true regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, or believes.

This view contrasts with Anti-Realism (which claims morality is subjective, culturally constructed, or fictitious) and Non-Cognitivism (which claims moral statements are just expressions of emotion, like booing or cheering).

The Core Concept

To be a moral realist, one must generally accept three pillars:

1. Cognitivism: Moral statements (e.g., "Murder is wrong") express beliefs that can be true or false. They are not just emotional outbursts.
2. Truth-Aptness: These moral beliefs describe facts. "Murder is wrong" is capable of being true in the same grammatical way that "The cat is on the mat" is true.
3. Objectivity (Independence): The truth of these facts does not depend on the observer's opinion. If the entire world believed that torturing innocents was "good," the moral realist would argue that the entire world is simply mistaken, just as if everyone believed the earth was flat.

Here is the robust defense of Moral Realism, structured by its strongest arguments.

---

1. The "Companions in Guilt" Argument

This is arguably the strongest logical defense of moral realism. It argues that if you attack moral facts for being invisible or non-physical, you inadvertently destroy other things we believe are real, like mathematics and logic. This is essentially a philosophical strategy of mutually assured destruction. It defends Moral Realism by asserting that the arguments used to kill off morality would also accidentally kill off mathematics and logic—two disciplines that almost everyone (including skeptics) believes are objective and true.

Critics say moral facts (like "murder is wrong") are weird because you can't touch them or put them in a test tube. Since You cannot touch "wrongness." It isn’t made of atoms. it cannot exist. Since we can’t see/touch them, how do we know them? We must rely on "intuition," which skeptics claim is unscientific.

The Defense: You also cannot touch or see the number 7, or the logical rule of Modus Ponens, or the concept of validity. Yet, we believe 2+2=4 is an objective fact, not just an opinion. Thus, If mathematical truths can exist without being physical objects, why can't moral truths? To reject moral realism because it isn't "physical" forces you to reject mathematics and logic. If you want to keep math, you have to allow room for non-physical objective truths (companions)

2. The Argument from Epistemic Norms

Epistemic norms are the rules and standards that govern how we form, maintain, and revise our beliefs. While moral norms tell you how to act (e.g., "don't steal"), and prudential norms tell you what is in your best interest (e.g., "eat healthy food"), epistemic norms tell you how to be a "good thinker." They are strictly concerned with truth, knowledge, and justification.

• You ought to believe p only if p is true.
• You ought to proportion your belief to the strength of your evidence
• You ought not believe both p and not-p at the same time.
• You should only tate as fact that which you know.

This version is arguably stronger because it focuses on Normativity (rules about what you ought to do). It is largely associated with philosopher Terence Cuneo and his book The Normative Web.

The Attack on Morality

Skeptics argue that "Ought" statements are not real facts. The universe just is; it contains atoms and energy. It does not contain instructions on what you should do. Therefore, moral "oughts" (e.g., "You ought not kill") are just human inventions or emotions.

The "Guilt" of Logic

The fact is Logic and Science are entirely built on "ought" statements. These are called Epistemic Norms (norms of belief).

• If you believe P and you believe P > Q, logic dictates that you ought to believe Q.
• If you see overwhelming evidence for a theory, you ought to believe that theory is likely true.
• You ought not believe that A and non-A are both true at the same time.

If the skeptic says, "There are no objective 'oughts' in the universe," they fall into a trap:

• If there are no "oughts," then there is no rule saying I ought to accept their argument, even if it is valid.

• If they say, "But my argument is the best explanation, so you should accept it," they are appealing to a binding, objective norm (a logical "ought").

• Therefore, to argue against moral norms, they must utilize epistemic norms. They are proving that objective norms exist in the very act of trying to disprove them

Thus, one cannot do Science without Morality (or at least, normative facts).

The "Companions in Guilt" argument forces the skeptic to choose between two uncomfortable positions:

Position	Consequence
Accept the Companions	If you admit that Math and Logic are objective, non-physical realities, you lose your main reason for rejecting Morality. You have opened the door to "abstract objective truths."
Reject the Companions	If you bite the bullet and say "Okay, Math and Logic are not objectively true either," you destroy your ability to reason or make scientific arguments. You end up in total Nihilism.

3. The Argument from Moral Progress

This one of the most intuitive and historically grounded defenses of Moral Realism. It posits that the undeniable improvement in human morality over time (e.g., the abolition of slavery, the recognition of women's rights) cannot be logically explained unless there is an objective moral standard we are discovering.  

Here is an expanded analysis of how this argument works, why it is powerful, and how it defends itself against skeptics.

The "Yardstick" Analogy.

The argument rests on a simple logical rule: To say something has "improved," you must measure it against a fixed standard.

Imagine you are trying to determine if a child has grown taller. You cannot just compare the child to themselves from yesterday (too small a change) or to a cloud (which keeps moving). You need a ruler (a fixed standard). If there is no ruler, you can only say the child has changed, not that they have grown.

If Moral Realism is false, there is no "moral ruler. A Relativist can say, "*We used to like slavery; now we dislike it.*" They can describe the change. But they **cannot** say, "*We are better now.*" To say we are better implies we are closer to the "correct" answer than our ancestors were.  So the question to relativists is "is society better without slaves"? 

Almost everyone believes that abolishing chattel slavery was a genuine improvement, not just a random change in fashion (like switching from bell-bottoms to skinny jeans). The moment you admit it was better, you implicitly admit there is an objective standard of "Good" that slavery failed to meet.

Historical Evidence: The Phenomenon of "Convergence"

Realists argue that moral history does not look like random drift; it looks like scientific convergence.

In science, we started with many different theories (alchemy, humors, flat earth). Over centuries, scientists from different cultures converged on a single truth (chemistry, germ theory, round earth) because they were all studying the same objective reality

Realists argue morality shows a similar pattern.  Ancient cultures were vastly different (some sacrificed children, some had slaves, some were warrior castes). Over millennia, the world has slowly converged on specific values: Human Rights, equality, and the reduction of unnecessary suffering.

Realists argue that this convergence is best explained by the fact that we are slowly discovering the same moral facts, just as we discovered the same physics facts.

One of the most powerful formulations of this argument comes from philosopher Peter Singer.  Singer observes that moral progress almost always follows a specific direction: the expansion of the circle of moral concern.

• Primitive: "Only me and my kin matter."
• Tribe: "Only my tribe matters; strangers can be killed."
• Nation: "Only my countrymen matter."
• Humanity: "All humans matter (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)."
• Future: "Animals and future generations matter."

If morality were just random cultural "drift," we might expect the circle to shrink sometimes and expand others randomly. The fact that it consistently widens suggests a directional discovery process: we are realizing that the boundaries we drew were arbitrary errors.

4. Defense Against Skeptics

Skeptics (Anti-Realists/Evolutionary Debunkers) try to debunk this argument by saying we didn't abolish slavery because it was "objectively wrong." We abolished it because free markets were more efficient, or because cooperation helped us survive better. "Progress" is just "better adaptation," not moral truth.

However, this ignores the reasons people actually gave. When the British ended the slave trade, they did so at massive economic cost to themselves. It wasn't efficient; it was expensive. The people fighting for it didn't say, "This is inefficient." They said, "This is evil."

If we explain away progress as just "economic adaptation," we have to believe that every great moral reformer (Gandhi, King, Wilberforce) was deluded about their own motivations. Realism takes their insights seriously.

Skeptic's also argue that Realists are just biased - *You think the present is "better" because you live in it. If the Nazis had won, they would call their world "progress.*

But, we can objectively demonstrate incoherence in past moralities. The American Founders wrote "*All men are created equal*" but owned slaves. This is a logical contradiction.

Progress happened because we fixed the contradiction (we realized "All men" must include Black men, and women).

The Nazis were objectively wrong because their ideology relied on false scientific claims (e.g., that Jews were biologically inferior). Real moral progress is often the result of better reasoning and removing logical contradictions, which is an objective process.

The Argument from Moral Progress is the Realist's strongest emotional and historical weapon. It forces the skeptic into an uncomfortable corner:

To deny Moral Realism, you must be willing to look at the Holocaust, Slavery, and Apartheid and say, "*We didn't solve these because they were truly wrong; we just changed our minds, and our current view is no more 'true' than the views of the slaveholders.*"

If morality were just subjective taste (like preferring chocolate to vanilla), we couldn't say abolishing slavery was "better"—only "different." We would have to admit that a slave-owning society is just as valid as a free one, merely "different flavors."

Our strong intuition that we have improved as a species implies there is a standard (a "moral yardstick") we are measuring ourselves against. Realism is the only view that allows for the concept of genuine progress  Most people find that conclusion impossible to live with, which drives them back toward Realism.

5. The "Euthyphro" Defense (Independence)

The "Euthyphro" Defense is a crucial strategic move by Moral Realists. It borrows its name from one of Plato’s most famous dialogues, the Euthyphro, to argue that Moral Realism is the only ethical framework that prevents morality from becoming a tool of tyranny.

This defense essentially argues that if you reject objective, independent moral facts, you accidentally embrace a world where "Might Makes Right."

1. The Original Dilemma (Plato)

To understand the defense, you first need the context of the dilemma Plato presented in the Euthyphro. Socrates asks Euthyphro a deceptively simple question about the nature of "piety" (or "the good"):

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

This creates a fork in the road for how we define Goodness:

Horn 1 (Independence/Realism): Goodness is independent. God (or society/law) loves it because it is already good.

Horn 2 (Voluntarism/Subjectivism): Goodness is dependent. It becomes good simply because God (or society/law) decides it is.

The Realist argues that if you choose the second option (that morality is created by a mind, whether God's or the Majority's), you destroy the meaning of morality itself.

The Arbitrariness Problem

If morality is merely "what the powerful say it is" (Horn 2), then the rules are arbitrary. If the majority commanded us to torture innocent children for fun, would that become morally good?

If you say "Yes," you have admitted that morality has no actual content; it’s just blind obedience. "Good" loses its meaning and just means "what I was told to do."

Realists say, "No, even if God commanded that, it would still be wrong." This proves there is a standard of Right and Wrong above the commander. This standard is the "Moral Fact" (Realism).

If Moral Realism is false, then morality is likely a construct of society.

Imagine a totalitarian government passes a law that legalizes genocide against a minority group. The majority of society supports it.

The Non-Realist Dilemma: If morality is defined by "society's agreement" or "the law," then by definition, the genocide is now morally right in that country. A non-realist has no platform to stand on and say, "This law is wrong." They can only say, "I personally don't like it."

The Realist Defense: Realism allows you to say: "The Law says X, and Society agrees with X, but X is objectively WRONG." This separates Power from Rightness. It gives the dissenter (the Martin Luther King Jr., the Sophie Scholl) the metaphysical ground to stand against the entire world and declare the world mistaken.

Who defines "Good"?	Consequence
The Subject / The State	"Might Makes Right." If the Nazis win and brainwash everyone, they become "morally right."
Reality Itself	"Right Makes Might." Even if the Nazis win, they are objectively wrong. Truth exists independently of power.

Finally, Moral Realism offers the most robust defense against authoritarianism.

If morality is created by minds (Subjectivism) or by society (Relativism), then the majority is always right. If 51% of a society votes to exterminate a minority, and morality is defined by that society, then the extermination is "morally right" by definition.

Moral Realism provides the only coherent ground to stand up and say, "The King is wrong," "The Law is wrong". It's the only philosophical shield that protects minorities and dissenters from the tyranny of the majority opinion.

Summary of the Defense

Argument	The Defense in a Nutshell
Companions in Guilt	If you deny moral facts, you must deny Math and Logic too.
Epistemic Norms	Science relies on "oughts" (rules of reasoning). If "oughts" aren't real, Science collapses.
Moral Progress	We have improved (e.g., ending slavery). Progress requires an objective standard to measure against.
Euthyphro	if you reject objective, independent moral facts, you accidentally embrace a world where "Might Makes Right."

Is the Argument from Reason is Too Successful For its Own Good?

 this Reddit post will be posted here in black. My replies will be in red

Thesis: the argument from reason mistakenly applies a general doubt about the validity of reason to the specific case of naturalism, but in reality applies equally to supernaturalism, as well as any other account of the universe, theistic or not. Therefore, it is not a relevant argument in discussions of theism.

TL;DR

The argument from reason states that naturalism (the view that only the natural exists and the supernatural does not) depends on reason, but makes it impossible to trust that same reason. On this grounds, it rejects naturalism. However, it is impossible to trust reason under any worldview, including theism. This has nothing to do with naturalism - it's just a feature of reason. Therefore, the argument from reason, if successful, succeeds at rejecting all worldviews (including the claim that the argument from reason itself is valid). So the argument from reason contradicts itself and must fail.

The Argument from Reason

The argument from reason is an argument associated with Christian apologist C. S. Lewis and popular with online Christian apologists in general (though it does not relate to Christianity specifically). The argument seeks to disprove a view of the universe called "naturalism", which basically holds that only natural things and the relationships between them exist, and that the supernatural doesn't. Some versions of the argument also further try to prove supernaturalism or theism.

Here is C. S. Lewis's description of the argument from reason:

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.— C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses

In simpler terms, the argument basically goes like this:

If we claim naturalism is true, then we and everything we are is the result of natural, mindless, non-rational forces acting without any purpose.

If we are the result of nonrational forces, there is no reason to think that they would produce humans with an ability to use reliable reason.

Therefore, we have no reason to trust our own reasoning, and so we can't trust the reasoning that led us to naturalism.

A common counterargument to this is to point to evolution. 

Evolution, the defender of natural logic will say, favors humans who can correctly reason over those they cannot! Therefore there is a reason to think mindless forces produced reliable reason in us! It is at this point the proponent of the argument from reason will usually smirk, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know evolution is true? Did you use reason to conclude that? Hohohoho!", pushing up their glasses as they gently stroke their signed copy of Mere Christianity.

The apologist's defense here is simple but quite impenetrable. Any counterargument you present to defend your naturally-created reason will be based on, you guessed it, reason. So any counterargument you make will be circular! You cannot use unreliable reason to show that same reason to be reliable!

But they forget that in a naturalistic worldview, everything is the result of matter acting in accordance with the physical laws. Not the laws of logic. So, when the atheist cites "reason" or a "reasonable conclusion", it really just the result of an unintelligent, mindless, material process that follows the physical laws, not logic/reason. 

But what of the Theist? She is not bound by the natural or by the physical laws. Thus, that which constrains the atheist/naturalist brain does not do so to the Theist. The Theist is free from the bounds of the physical and can engage in critical thinking as governed by the laws of logic. - From my post on the Argument From Reason

So, what are we to do? Do we give up and convert to theism post-haste? Instead, let's take a trip - in our favorite rocket ship - to visit Planet Populon.

Planet Populon

Planet Populon is a distant planet not so different from Earth. On it live a race on beings called the Popularians, who are little purple creatures with four arms and six toes on each foot. They are very similar to humans, save for one important difference: they are incapable of understanding the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.

The appeal to popularity is a simple logical fallacy that says "because an idea is popular, it must be true." To us humans, it's easy to see why this is false. For example, it was once popular to think the earth was flat! In some places, it's popular to think that pineapple tastes good on pizza! And yet those things are obviously false.

But the Popularians are different from us. They are incapable of recognizing this as a fallacy. Whenever one of them begins to think about the problems or contradictions that arise from an appeal to popularity, a special gland in their brains immediately floods their minds with thoughts of the last sports-ball match they watched, and they stop thinking about logical fallacies. Thus, the Popularians never realize that an appeal to popularity is fallacious - they are convinced that it's a valid form of reasoning.

The Popularians, too, believe in God. In fact, they have a logical proof of God's existence, known as the populogical argument. It goes a little something like this: most Popularians believe God exists – therefore, God exists. It's a flawless argument, beautiful in its simplicity, so elegant and minimal that there's no room for logical errors to possibly slip in. Furthermore, for those crazies that question whether reason itself is valid, the Popularians have an answer! It's popular to think that if God exists, he would create the Popularians with reliable reason. And since it's popular, it must be true! So the Popularians' reason must be reliable.

But we, from the side, know there is an error in the populogical argument. The argument commits a logical fallacy - an appeal to popularity. This means the Popularians' reason is not reliable, God or no. But the very fact that their reasoning is unreliable makes them unable to find the flaws in their proofs of their reasoning being reliable!

The Point

So what's the point of our visit to Planet Populon? It's simple. How do we know we are not like the Popularians?

If our reason was unreliable, and there was some fallacy we were incapable of noticing or some rule of logic we were missing, then all of our arguments would be moot. No matter how hard we worked to prove that the sky is blue, or that God exists, or that our reasoning was reliable, it would be pointless, because the very reason we used to tell the good arguments from the bad would be misfiring. And there's no way to prove we'd know if this was the case - after all, to prove that, we need to assume reason is reliable in our proof! It is impossible to prove that reason is reliable, because you need to use reason to do so.

So what does this have to do with the argument from reason? Well remember, the argument from reason was an argument targeted at naturalism. It said that naturalism must be false, because it implies our reason can't be trusted. But the Popularians don't believe in naturalism, and their reasoning still can't be trusted! It turns out, you can never prove your reason is trustworthy. No matter your worldview, you must assume your reason is reliable in order to make any argument at all.

This is the flaw! The argument from reason doesn't say that "reason is unreliable", it states that "reason is unreliable under a naturalistic worldview".  And that's because a naturalistic brain is constrained by the physical laws. Every human action, including thoughts, is the result of the physical laws. The laws of logic play zero part in the thinking process.  

This means that the argument from reason succeeds not just against naturalism, but against any worldview! For example, here's the argument again, but directed at theism this time.

If we claim theism is true, then we and everything we are is the result of supernatural, mindful, rational forces acting without any purpose.

Strawman argument - a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or distorts an opponent's actual argument to make it easier to attack, creating a weak "straw man" version to knock down instead of the real, stronger position, thereby appearing to win the debate without addressing the core issue. It's a deceptive tactic in debates, often involving oversimplification or taking words out of context, to make one's own stance seem superior.

I do not argue, nor do I know of any Christian who argues for a "supernatural, mindful, rational forces acting without any purpose"

If we are the result of rational forces, there is no reason to think that they would produce humans with an ability to use reliable reason.

Therefore, we have no reason to trust our own reasoning, and so we can't trust the reasoning that led us to theism.

A theist might object and say, "of course we have reason to think rational forces would produce rational minds!" But this time we can smirk, push up our glasses, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know rational forces would produce rational minds? Did you use reason to conclude that?" Once again, any argument you use to show that human reason is reliable under theism is itself based on that same reason 

A theist might object and say, "of course we have reason to think rational forces would produce rational minds!" But this time we can smirk, push up our glasses, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know rational forces would produce rational minds? Did you use reason to conclude that?" Once again, any argument you use to show that human reason is reliable under theism is itself based on that same reason.

Notice a parallel here. It's quite reasonable to think that we can trust our reason under theism - after all, we can propose a simple mechanism for it (God made it that way). Just as before, it was quite reasonable to think that we can trust our reason under naturalism - after all, we can propose a simple mechanism for it (evolution made it that way). But in both cases, establishing these mechanisms relies on our reason, so ends up being circular. 

Under a theistic worldview, human reasoning is not viewed as a mere evolutionary byproduct for survival but as a reflection of a divine mind.

In this framework, the ability to think logically is often treated as a "gift" or an "imprint" of the Creator, ensuring that the human mind is attuned to the structure of the universe. This perspective changes why we trust our thoughts and how we use them.

The central premise of theistic reasoning (particularly in the Abrahamic traditions) is the concept of Imago Dei—that humans are created in the "image of God."

Since God is viewed as the ultimate rational being (the Logos), creating humans in His image implies endowing them with a "spark" of that rationality. This gives humans the unique ability to step beyond instinct (like animals) and engage in abstract thought, mathematics, and moral judgment. We reason because we are "mini-reasoners" modeled after the "Great Reasoner."

In a theistic worldview, the laws of logic (like A cannot be non-A) are not arbitrary rules invented by humans, nor are they rules that God simply "decided" to create. Instead, they are believed to be reflections of God's own nature.

Because God is consistent and cannot lie or contradict Himself, the universe He created operates on consistent, non-contradictory laws. When humans use logic, they are not inventing a tool; they are discovering the fabric of reality. To reason correctly is to think God's thoughts after Him.

Since a rational God designed the human mind specifically to know and understand the world, then we have a valid reason to trust our cognitive faculties. We can assume that our logic maps onto reality because both were made by the same Author.

Contrary to the popular cultural idea that faith and reason are opposites, the classical theistic view (championed by figures like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine) sees them as partners. It's actually atheism/naturalism v reason that are opposites, or incompatible. 

"Faith Seeking Understanding": This famous Latin phrase (fides quaerens intellectum) suggests that faith is the starting point that orients the mind, while reason is the tool used to explore and understand that faith.

 Theists often describe two sources of knowledge:

1. The Book of Scripture: Specific revelation (moral laws, nature of God).

2. The Book of Nature: General revelation (science, physics, logic). Since both books have the same Author, theists believe they cannot ultimately contradict each other. If they seem to, it is presumed that our human interpretation of one (or both) is wrong.

Theistic worldviews also offer an explanation for why human reasoning fails (bias, error, delusion). This is often called the "noetic effect of sin" or human finitude.

While the capacity for reason is divine, the execution is flawed because humans are imperfect/fallen.

Summary: The Difference

Feature	Naturalistic View	Theistic View
Origin of Reason	Evolutionary adaptation for survival.	Imprint of the Divine Mind (Imago Dei).
Basis of Logic	None.Thoughts are the result of physical laws not  logical laws..	Reflection of God's internal consistency.
Why Trust It?	Can't as it works for survival, not truth seeking	It was designed to find Truth.
Goal	To adapt and survive. Logic/truth not relevant	To know God and understand His creation/reality.

This is just how reasoning works. You can't use reason to prove itself, because reason itself precludes it. Reason an axiom - you must assume it to use it. But I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make.

Only axiom is Reason is the basis for knowledge

Conclusion

The argument from reason is too successful. It's an example of a class of arguments I've witnessed more and more in recent years, that I call "sinking canoe" arguments. The name comes from the following story:

The argument from reason is too successful vs atheism/natursalism, not Christain theism. 

Two men are sitting in a canoe. Suddenly, a leak springs in the bottom of the canoe, and it begins to fill with water. The man in the back stands up, walks to the front, carefully examines the other man's seat, and declares: "Yep! Your half is sinking!"

The format of the fallacy is much like the argument from reason. Let's say you believe in idea A, and want to refute some competing idea B. Take a general issue that plagues both A and B, change up some wording and introduce some terminology to make it seem specific to B, and then present it as a refutation of B. These arguments are so very effective because to refute the specific argument against B usually seems impossible, because it's not an argument against B at all. What really must be done is to see the argument for what it is: a general issue that rests on a deeper level than the contest between A and B, and that supports them both – an issue that must be resolved before either A or B can succeed, or must refute them both, but that offers no insight into which of A or B is the better idea. The canoe sinks for us both, and we must either patch it together, or both go down with the ship.

Sorry to tell you, but we are not sitting in the same boat. Since your naturalism cannot account for or give grounding to reason, critical thinking, or logic. However God can. 

So yes, your boat is sunk, not the Christian's!

The Argument from Reason