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

Reason is the basis for knowledge

Reason is the basis for knowledge and therefore the way to determine what is true.

For example, under empiricism [the philosophical view that knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation] they will use reason to formulate a hypothesis, construct an experiment, and evaluate the result. So, an empiricist will, in fact must, appeal to logic/reason to obtain knowledge. And this is true for any other schools of thought – everyone will appeal to reason to defend their view as well as criticize/evaluate other views

Reason or Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. 

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. We use Critical thinking for analyzing and/or evaluating information gathered from various sources as a guide to convictions and action in everyday life and in all fields of inquiry. 

A Christian may say that revelation is knowledge, but they must still reason from the Scriptures, as in Acts 17:2,17

Note: if one uses reason to criticize my claim, that's actually validating it - you are using reason to gain knowledge as to the validity of my claim.

Objection 1: Rationalism begs the question - the rationalist will use a rational argument as a premise for the conclusion of his argument.

Reply: To this, I say no, it is testing a hypothesis. Test all epistemic theories, see that all use reason.

Objection 2: I can use reason to gain knowledge about the Lord of the Rings. I can gain knowledge about a fictional universe, but that doesn't make it magically true for our reality

Reply: If one is gaining knowledge about the LOTR, then they should be able to gain the information that it's fictional.

Objection 3: One must use evidence along with reason to conclude they’ve learned something about reality and not about something in their (or someone else’s) imagination. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between knowledge about reality and knowledge about fictional universes.

Reply: First, notice that you did not use evidence in this, so you seem to have refuted your own point. Secondly, you cite "reality"; what is it, and how do you know?

Objection 4: Your appeal to “reasoning” as absolute authority is circular. You assert that “reasoning” is the ultimate authority because that is the only reasonable means for ascertaining truth.

Reply: Circular reasoning is when the proposition is supported by the premises, which are supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.

But my argument stems from the fact I investigated other schools of thought until it dawned on me that everyone uses logic or reasoning to make their case, including empiricists, skeptics, intuitionists, etc.

Note: These pushbacks come from previous conversations about this topic.

To sum up,

1) reason alone can be used alone to gain knowledge 

 

2) every other method must employ reason to gain knowledge, otherwise their preferred epistemological model doesn't work

 
3) All criticisms of my view will invariably use reason to validate their analysis.

Other posts you may be interested in:

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

The Inference to the Best Explanation

The Consensus of the Experts Say... 

Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view

The Three Laws of Logic

Justified True Belief

Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting

The Argument from Reason

Why the atheist/naturalist can't trust his brain

If naturalism (materialism) is true, then your thoughts are just chemical reactions in your brain, determined by the laws of physics. But if your thoughts are just fizzing chemicals, why should you trust them to tell you the truth?

If there is no God and everything is material, then the human brain is essentially a biological machine, Your thoughts are not produced by "reason" or "logic"; they are produced by neurons firing

The only thing driving the development of the brain was Evolution. But that is where the problem starts. Evolution does not care about what is true; it only cares about what helps you survive.

If a caveman hears a rustle in the grass, it helps him survive to believe "It's a tiger!" and run away. It doesn't matter if it was actually just the wind. [Plantinga's example]

Thus, If our brains were built strictly for survival (per evolution) then we have no reason to trust them when they try to do complex things that don't help us survive, like quantum physics, philosophy, or arguing about the existence of God.

This is the fatal flaw in the atheist worldview. An atheist uses their brain to reason, "There is no God; everything is just random atoms."

But if that statement is true, then the brain they used to come to that conclusion is also just random atoms. It wasn't built for truth; it was built to hunt, reproduce, survive.

It’s like shaking a box of Scrabble letters and having them accidentally spell out a sentence. The sentence might exist, but you wouldn't trust it to contain deep meaning because it was created by random shaking, not an intelligent mind.

To trust our own brain, our own logic, we have to believe that our reasoning power comes from a rational source.

If God exists (a Rational Mind), then He created our minds in His image, specifically so we could understand the universe.

The atheist, naturalist, critic cannot use reason to disprove God, because the validity of reason depends on God. As C.S. Lewis famously put it: "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

*****

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!

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. 

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

Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting

Definition: 

Determinism, a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.

Examples: 

1) Truth cannot be known (If so, then how does one know this truth claim?)

2) Language cannot carry meaning  (If language cannot carry meaning, then what about this claim? Is it meaningful?)

3) Science is the only way to determine truth, or I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process  (Can science determine if that statement [about science] is true or what scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?)

The problem:

Justification [the action of showing something to be right or reasonable] requires some kind of "cognitive freedom" - you need to have control over your deliberations, over what you do [or don't accept] on the basis of evidence, reason, However, determinism [the belief that all actions and events result from other actions [i.e not you - so people cannot in fact choose what to do] makes this freedom impossible. 

Therefore, the person who argues for determinism, or is tempted to accept it, is in a weird position: their conclusion apparently undermines the very reasoning process they're using to justify it.

The Argument:

Philosophical Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that all things supernatural (including gods, spirits, souls and non-natural values) therefore do not exist. It is sometimes called Metaphysical Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism to distinguish it from Methodological Naturalism. Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism

Methodological Naturalism is the assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural/physical causes for all events and phenomenon. From Rationalwiki - An online rationalist skeptical resource with is decidedly anti-religious, anti-theistic bent.

Michael Ruse an atheist and Philosopher of science in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism writes "It is usual to distinguish between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" whereby the latter we need a complex denial of the supernatural - including atheism as understood in the context of this publication - and by the former a conscious decision to act in inquiry and understanding, especially scientific inquiry and understanding as if metaphysical naturalism were true. The intention is not to assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but to act as if it were.  [p383]

That's methodological naturalism - assuming naturalism is true, or acting as if it were, in one's methodology.

Philosophical Naturalism holds that any mental properties that exist are causally derived from, and ontologically dependent on, systems of non-mental properties, powers or things (i.e. all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely constructed from or caused by natural phenomena). 

Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism - all events are physically determined, including human thoughts. 

To do science one must only presume that the universe is orderly, i.e. disposed in some order or pattern, or governed by law.

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge, since all epistemological theories or methods must employ it.

2) Every truth claim requires the laws of logic. It is impossible to deny the laws of logic without using them. Thus, logic reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality. In fact, everyone is using logic in this discussion, so it seems evident that all believe that logic is an aspect of reality.

3) All debates presuppose a reality that exists. Each debater is trying to show that their claims are closer to that reality or are best explained by that reality.

4) Critical thinking's definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. [source] Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed; an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

5) Under Philosophical Naturalism all actions, including human thoughts, words and deeds, are the result of matter which must act in accordance with antecedent physical conditions and the physical laws without exceptions.

6) 4 above is incoherent under Philosophical Naturalism; logic, reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality that cannot be explained via Philosophical Naturalism, since no one has dominion over their thoughts - i.e. no one makes any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws, as they must act only in accordance to the physical laws Note: Just saw this vid where William Lane Craig agrees with this point

7) The best explanation for the existence of logic is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical; i.e. not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. One's decisions are differentiated from natural events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

J. P. Moreland in his book, “Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity" offers a perfect summary: “Physicalism cannot be offered as a rational theory because physicalism does away with the necessary preconditions for there to be such a thing as rationality.” If a naturalist wants to argue that rationality does not exist, they will be making two grave errors: 1- They would be claiming to be non-rational, and 2- they would be making a rational argument that rationality does not exist. It seems the rational decision one ought to come to is that naturalism is irrational, and therefore, false.

In Daniel O. Dhalstrom's Heidegger's concept of truth the author writes: There is, for example, a metaphysical sense of naturalism that Husserl deems self-refuting: the theoretical pretense that everything - including, preeminently, ideas and consciousness - is part of "nature", conceived as the ensemble of empirical facts governed by laws uncovered by natural science....The claim is self-refuting and a pretense because it cannot justify itself; 

Conclusion: Philosophical Naturalism is not simply less likely to be correct, it is logically self-refuting and is necessarily false since it cannot account for reason - careful, purposeful, intellectually disciplined, goal directed thinking as a guide to belief and action. Under PN every thought action is physically determined. Thus, the existence of logic is best explained in a reality where more than the physical exists - something that is not bound by physical restraints - which allows one the freedom of not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself.

As Haldane once said, “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Either “reason” is merely an illusion of physics—in which case there is no justification for relying on it to produce truthful beliefs—or “reason” is something more than physical—in which case naturalism is false. If human reason is driven by mindless particle interactions, it does not necessarily correspond to truth. If we believe reason corresponds to truth, we cannot also believe reason is determined purely by physical means.

No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

Objection A: We live in a natural world. There is no supernatural. Deal with it

Reply: Yes, we live in a natural world, that's not the question. Which is, is reality encompassed by just the natural world?  Given the above argument, that's not likely. 

Objection B: Naturalism is not a presumption. Its induction. If you have only ever seen white swans, and you have to guess what color the next swan you see will be, the best guess is white.

Reply: How does this show that only the physical exists? 

Objection C: this argument does not sufficiently demonstrate that philosophical naturalism is self refuting. So it still stands.

Reply: This is an assertion. It can be, and should be, lopped off with Hitchens's razor: what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. If you have an argument, please provide it. 

Objection D: Quantum Mechanics shows that the world/universe that is just physical isn't necessarily deterministic

Reply: While that is true, it hardly solves the problem of grounding rational, logical, goal-oriented thoughts in a physical world where there are only determined thoughts or random thoughts. 

Objection E: Being a philosophical naturalist doesn’t mean you have to be a determinist

Reply: I've heard this objection from quite a few, but I always follow up with this: "If only natural laws and forces operate in the universe, how then are human actions not determined by those laws and forces?"

My interlocutors either go silent or try burden shifting, as they are unable to come up with anything to support their claim that "Being a philosophical naturalist doesn’t mean you have to be a determinist".

The Ontological Foundations of Rationality: Grounding Logic, Reason, and Critical Thinking in the Divine Nature

The Ontological Foundations of Rationality: Grounding Logic, Reason, and Critical Thinking in the Divine Nature

\

Synopsis 

The fundamental tools of human cognition, logic, reason, and critical thinking, require a robust metaphysical foundation that secular worldviews cannot provide.

Metaphysical Naturalism, the view that the physical cosmos is all that exists, fails because if human thoughts are merely the result of blind neurochemical reactions, there is no justification for trusting them as rational insights into truth. Unguided evolution selects for survival, not truth. If our cognitive faculties are evolved merely for adaptive behavior, the probability that they produce true beliefs is low. Thus, the naturalist has a defeater for trusting their mind, including their belief in naturalism itself.

Conventionalism, the idea that logic is a human linguistic invention, should be rejected because logic is universal and invariant; a society cannot validly decide that contradictions are true.

The theory of Brute Facts, that logic simply "is" without explanation, can be dismissed for violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which undergirds all scientific inquiry.

Platonism, which views logic as abstract objects existing in a non-physical realm, is also wanting. It fails the access problem: if logic is causally inert and outside space-time, physical humans could never know it. Furthermore, propositions possess intentionality (they are about things), which is a property unique to minds, not abstract objects.

In contrast, there is Divine Conceptualism (or Theistic Conceptual Realism). It posits that laws of logic are necessary truths. Since truths are propositions and propositions are mental thoughts, necessary truths must be the thoughts of a necessary, eternal Mind, i.e. God. This avoids the Euthyphro Dilemma by grounding logic not in God’s arbitrary will, but in His essential, immutable nature.

Thus, God is the necessary precondition for any rational experience. To argue against God, a skeptic must rely on the uniformity of nature and laws of logic, which only make sense in a theistic universe. Thus, atheism is self-refuting because it borrows capital from the worldview it seeks to deny.

Humans can reason because they are designed to reflect the Supreme Mind. This also explains the normativity of logic; we feel we ought to be logical because irrationality is a moral rebellion against the nature of reality and God. Without God, reason collapses, making theism a strict philosophical necessity for critical thinking.

There is NO evidence for God!

I hear the "There is no evidence for God" line all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; there IS evidence for God.

An analogy: The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the Steady State universe or a cyclical universe. It just means that the Big Bang Theory explains more of the data/evidence better than those other two. The same data/evidence is used by all three.

Similarly, Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not.

The data/evidence

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

2) Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent, thus 1) one cannot default to physical explanations; 2) we now have at least one reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable.

3) Our thoughts are not just brain activity, rather they are the result of an immaterial mind thus, we now have a second reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable

4) A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause solves the problem of an infinite regress of causes

5) the origin of DNA is more likely on design than chance.

6) The fine-tuning of the universe is more likely on design than chance or necessity - thus, given all the above, a transcendent metaphysically necessary God is the best explanation for life as we know it.

7) Jesus was a historical person, see also Bart Erhman, NT Scholar agnostic/atheist where he says ["no question Jesus existed"] since there are many, early, independent sources.

8) Jesus' resurrection was historical rather than a myth

Conclusion: Sans the presumption of philosophical naturalism, 1–8 above, and the explanation offered for each, offer a critical thinker good reasons to conclude that the Christian God is the best explanation for the world as we know it.

If atheists and other critics with "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced" then they are admitting that they do not have any explanations and tacitly conceding that the Christian has the better explanation.

If one has no better explanation(s), why reject the Christian's?

Objection A - This is a God of the gaps fallacy

Reply: I’m not citing a gap in our knowledge and saying "God did it". This is a series of arguments; first showing that reason is the basis for knowledge not science; second, that must be a non-physical aspect to reality; third that design is a better explanation for our existence and life; fourth that God is the best explanation for whom that designer is.

Objection B - The theory of the existence of a mind makes no predictions, thus there can be no evidence for it. 

Reply: It doesn't need to. You seem assuming that it must meet the criteria for a scientific theory, but this is a logical argument. See point 1 Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

Objection C - this is just a list of assertions based on your own ignorance, incredulity, and gullibility; that's not evidence for God. This is just "apologist goulash"  

Reply:  You are just sticking your head in the sand, refusing to engage in a discussion of the evidence/data/arguments. 

Objection D - You might want to post this on a Reddit sub where you debate atheists, not Christians. I'm sure the Christians here could offer some constructive feedback, though.

Reply:  In my experience: 1) there are enough atheists in Christian subs to get feedback/debate, 2) what I mostly get on when I used to post atheist Subreddits is derision and downvotes, no intelligent discussion. Look at the current comments on Reddit. Additionally, Christians can be edified, educated, and enriched with this.

Objection E - Your points/arguments are incredibly inaccurate

Reply: Which ones specifically and where exactly are the errors for each? 

Objection F - Is the universe really so perfect? It’s extreme and harsh. Completely inhospitable for life, with vast excesses of empty space. Is that the mark of design?

Reply: When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life can exist wherever, or whenever, or that it's a paradise, or that there is no suffering/death; they do not even guarantee that life will exist. It’s a much more modest claim. It only holds that the fine-tuning will permit the existence of life. That’s it.

Objection G - You misunderstand what constitutes evidence.

Reply: Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, archaeological finds, DNA, etc

DNA is evidence. The findings of neuroscience for an an immaterial mind is evidence. Fine-Tuned Constants is evidence. Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent is evidence

Objection H -  Where you see design, others see chaos.

Reply: What better explains the Fine-Tuned Constants of the universe? Design, or chaos? Why?

What better explains the multitude of DNA-based micromachines like the ATP Synthase? Design, or chaos? Why?

SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection I -  The problem with this is sooner or later we hit a brute fact. I say that the fact is there are natural laws that describe how reality functions.  You say, because a magic guy made it that way.  We can show the laws, testable, repeatable, and consistent.

Reply: First, you cite "reality"; so what is reality, and how do you know? 

It can't be Philosophical Naturalism since it's logically incoherent and since Reason is the basis for all knowledge this seems to be how we should evaluate arguments

And the "magic guy" is better understood as A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause 

Additional info

Atheist Engineer Explains How Reason Led Him To GOD (Part 1) [Video]

Does the TAG argument for God have Multiple Holes in it?

This is an evaluation of a Reddit post on 3/20/21: The TAG argument for God has multiple concerning holes that most atheists do not take advantage of.  I responded, but the OP,  Technical-disOrder, never responded. 

Text of post in full: 

The typical Van Till TAG argument goes something like this:

X (God) is the necessary precondition for the possibility of Y(reason/logic) , Y exists therefore X exists.

Somebody who isn't well-adept to TAG but philosophically minded will say this is circular. You're using God to prove the existence of logic....by using logic. Kant struggled with this, but Van Till created an out for the TAG believer by making a discrepancy between viscious circularity and virtuous circularity. He stated that any meta-logic premise regardless will be circular. Naturalism would be viscious circularity because it's assuming "accident" (that is, unguided) reason for reason is incoherent because "accident" assumes meaning and purpose/tautology in the first place; it's saying purpose exists in a purposeless universe which is not a paradox but a contradiction. However, with God you have an all-powerful all-knowing being in whose nature and being is reason/logic.

I was a TAG "debatebro" for a while until I came across a wonderful paper by Amy Karofsky titled "God, Modalities, and Conceptualism". [note: see this evaluation of this paper here] The paper gave very good arguments against modal arguments for God, from there I found my own critique that is sort of like the Euthrypo problem but tied to modality. Since then I have tried to contact both Dyer and Jimbob in order for them to respond to the video I made but neither has contacted me. I once tried to bring this up in their discord but they treated me so poorly (so much for Christian kindness) that I had to leave. I asked them to watch my video and they said "we don't do self-promotion, just give me your argument" as if I could lay out an entire philosophical counter-argument in a discord comment. Anyway, I will get on with the structure of my argument:If God is responsible for the POSSIBILITY of knoweldge then there are two roads we can take here, either:

A: logic was arbitrarily created, this means that logic could have been anything. According to TAG logic is invariable and eternal. TAG doesn't work here obviously because logic could have been literally anything and have any form. Therefore we can't use what we see as logic now as "proof".

B: Logic was not a possibility at all but within the nature or "Logos" of God. If this is true then logic as it exists was not made by God's will as TAG claims but a necessary feature of his existence.Divine conceptualism and the "logos" does not solve this dilemma

Most TAG opponents will backtrack this fork and state something like: "logic exists within God's divine mind. A is not the case because logic/meaning is eternal and unchanging BECAUSE it comes from God's mind which we have access too. B also is incoherent because God is acting within his nature, God is free to act within his nature therefore he is not 'bound' by anything."

There are two responses to this, I will demonstrate why this isn't a good argument:

Most TAG propenents will hand-wave the "free-will" argument and use God's immutable nature, however, this is a severe problem with TAG. If both God and Logic are necessary then one cannot ground the other, you can't use God to ground logic anymore than you can use any other metaphysical theory. "Necessary" in philosophy means that it MUST exist (as in it cannot fail to exist). If you say that logic is necessary then that means there is no universe in which it cannot exist, it has standalone existince in that nothing decided the way it is or how it works. It exists because it MUST exist. Do you see how you cannot ground God anymore? Logic becomes another brute fact of reality like anything else. TAG then becomes something like this: "The fact that Bachelors are unmarried proves Bachelors exist."

If logic is a necessary feature of God's nature then logic doesn't function as an external precondition proving God, it simply follows from what God is. Describing God's nature is not the same thing as grounding logic. put in propositional form it goes something like this:

1: If something is necessary God could not have made it otherwise

2: If God couldn't have made it otherwise then logic isn't a product of divine choice

therefore: You cannot ground God in logic

1 Question + 32 Christians = 0 Actual Answers

The video 1 Question + 32 Christians = 0 Actual Answers features the host of the channel Mindshift analyzing 32 comments from Christians responding to a specific question: "Why do you trust God?" The host distinguishes "trust" from "belief" or "obedience" and argues that none of the respondents provided a logically justified answer.

Summary of the Arguments

The host categorizes the responses into several recurring themes, critiquing each through a skeptical lens:

• Personal Experience: Many commenters cited personal anecdotes or "answered prayers." The host argues that this is unreliable because followers of every religion claim identical experiences to validate their own (often mutually exclusive) deities.

• Biblical Authority: Several responses relied on the Bible's instruction to trust God. The host critiques this as circular reasoning, noting that one must already trust the Bible to accept its command to trust God.

• Fear and Sovereignty: Some argued they trust God because He is all-powerful and they have "no choice." The host characterizes these as reasons for obedience or fear, rather than reasons for genuine relational trust.

• Deflections and Attacks: A portion of the comments avoided the question entirely, instead attacking the host for being a "bitter ex-Christian" or questioning why an atheist cares about God.

• False Dichotomies: Arguments were made that if one doesn't trust God, they must trust "man," which the host refutes by stating that human trust is based on verifiable evidence and the ability to correct mistakes.

---

Evaluation of the Video

The video is a systematic critique of common religious apologetics, presented with a blend of logic and personal conviction.

• Effectiveness of Logic: The host is highly effective at identifying logical fallacies, such as the "Santa Claus" false analogy and the inconsistent application of personal experience. His insistence on the specific definition of trust forces the viewer to confront the difference between blind faith and evidence-based reliance.

• Tone and Delivery: The tone is provocative and direct. While this resonates strongly with his target audience (skeptics and those deconstructing their faith), it may feel dismissive to a believer seeking a neutral dialogue. However, the host maintains that his goal is intellectual honesty rather than appeasement.

• Strengths: The video's primary strength lies in its structure. By using actual user comments, the host grounds his abstract philosophical arguments in real-world examples of how people articulate their faith.

• Weaknesses: The sample size (32 comments) is limited to the host's own comment section, which naturally skews toward certain types of interactions. A more robust evaluation might include responses from formal theologians or philosophers to see if the 0 actual answers claim holds up against scholarly or academic Christians.

Overall, the video serves as a powerful tool for those looking to analyze the common refrains of modern Christian testimony from a rationalist perspective.

Rebuttal

a rebuttal to Mindshift's critique would focus on shifting the definitions of "trust" and "evidence" from a scientific framework to a philosophical and relational one.

Here is a rebuttal to the video’s core arguments:

---

1. The Historical Approach (Breaking the "Circular" Logic)

The host argues that trusting God because "the Bible says so" is circular. However, a common theological rebuttal is that many believers don't start with "divine inspiration." They start with historical reliability.

• The Argument: If the New Testament is treated as a collection of historical documents, and the Resurrection of Jesus is considered the most probable explanation for the birth of the early church, then trusting Jesus becomes a logical deduction.

• The Rebuttal: Trust isn't based on a circular book; it's based on a historical person (Jesus) whose claims were "validated" by an event in history.

2. Relational Trust vs. Scientific Proof

The host demands justification that looks like a lab report. A rebuttal would argue that relational trust works differently than propositional trust.

• The Argument: You don't prove your spouse is trustworthy via a double-blind study; you build a cumulative case through years of interaction.

• The Rebuttal: For the believer, answered prayers aren't individual data points to be debunked; they are part of a decades-long relationship. While a skeptic sees confirmation bias, a believer sees a consistent character.

3. The Properly Basic Belief

The host critiques personal experience as fault" because others have it too. Philosophers like Alvin Plantinga argue that belief in God can be properly basic.

• The Argument: Just as we trust our senses that the physical world is real (without being able to prove we aren't in a simulation), a sensus divinitatis (a sense of the divine) might be a foundational part of human hardware.

• The Rebuttal: If humans are designed to perceive the divine, then experiencing peace or presence is a rational ground for trust, not a trick of the brain.

4. Addressing the Santa Claus Analogy

The host compares God to Santa to show the absurdity of the belief. A rebuttal would call this a category error.

• The Argument: Santa is a "thing" within the universe (like a teapot or a unicorn) that can be falsified. In classical theism, God is the "Ground of All Being", the reason why there is something rather than nothing.

• The Rebuttal: You can’t debunk the "foundation of existence" the same way you debunk a man in a red suit. The arguments for God (Cosmological, Teleological) address why the universe exists at all, which is a far more robust "question" than the host implies.

---

The Steel Man Conclusion

A thoughtful believer might say the host is right about bad answers (fear, cliches, and circularity), but wrong that no answer exists. They would argue that trust in God isn't about ignoring logic; it’s about placing trust in the "Source of Logic" itself when human understanding reaches its limit.

o provide a direct rebuttal to the host's opening argument in 1 Question + 32 Christians = 0 Actual Answers—specifically his claim that eternal punishment for a "lie" is an unjust "meltdown" by a "fiend"—Christian apologists typically offer a three-layered counter-argument based on the nature of God, the nature of sin, and the nature of human choice.

---

1. The "Dignity of the Offended" Argument

The host argues that because human society doesn't arrest people for lying, God shouldn't punish it eternally. Apologists like William Lane Craig and St. Anselm argue that the severity of a crime is determined not just by the act, but by the dignity of the person being offended.

• The Rebuttal: A lie told to a friend is a social slight; a lie told under oath in court is perjury; but a lie (or any sin) directed at an infinitely holy and perfect God is an offense of infinite gravity. In this view, sin isn't just a "mistake"; it is a rejection of the source of all Truth and Life. Dr. William Lane Craig on Hell.

2. Hell as a "Trajectory," Not a "Sentence"

Tim Keller and C.S. Lewis famously rebutted the "torture chamber" imagery by redefining what Hell actually is.

• The Rebuttal: Hell is not a place where people are begging for mercy but are being kept in fire against their will. Rather, it is the natural trajectory of a soul that has chosen to live for itself instead of God. Keller argues that if you live a life of self-absorption and "clenched fists" toward God, Hell is simply that state allowed to continue into infinity. As Lewis famously put it in The Problem of Pain, "The doors of hell are locked on the inside." Tim Keller on "The Reason for God".

3. The Problem of "Infinite Punishment for Finite Sin"

The host calls the punishment "unjust" because the sin is finite but the time is infinite. Apologists address this using the Ongoing Sin Theory.

• The Rebuttal: People do not go to Hell for a single lie they told in 1995. They are in Hell because they continue to sin and reject God in the afterlife. William Lane Craig argues that insofar as the inhabitants of Hell continue to hate God, they continue to accrue guilt. Therefore, the punishment is not "infinite punishment for a finite sin," but an ongoing punishment for an ongoing rebellion.

4. Correcting the "Equal Punishment" Misconception

The host implies that Christians believe a "white lie" and "murder" deserve the exact same eternal torture.

• The Rebuttal: Most theologians and apologists (such as J. Warner Wallace) point to biblical passages (e.g., Luke 12:47-48) suggesting that there are different degrees of punishment in Hell based on the light a person had and the severity of their deeds. The idea that all sins receive an identical "infinite torture" is often a caricature of the actual doctrine.

Host's Point	Apologist's Rebuttal
"Lying isn't even a crime."	Lying against an infinite God is an infinite offense (St. Anselm).
"Infinite punishment is unjust."	Punishment continues because the rebellion continues (William Lane Craig).
"God is a fiend for torturing."	Hell is the soul's chosen "self-absorption" into infinity (Tim Keller).
"All sins are treated the same."	The Bible suggests degrees of accountability and justice (J. Warner Wallace).

To provide a robust and rational answer to "Why do you trust God?", one must move beyond subjective feelings and circular reasoning. A rationalist’s trust in God is typically built on a Cumulative Case—the idea that while no single argument is a "mathematical proof," the collection of evidence from philosophy, history, and personal experience makes trust the most "reasonable" conclusion.

Here is a synthesis of the most intellectually rigorous arguments for that trust:

The Rational Framework for Trusting God

---

1. The Ontological Foundation: God as the "Ground of Reason"

A rational answer begins by arguing that trust in God is the prerequisite for trust in reason itself.

• The Argument: If human consciousness is merely the byproduct of blind, unguided physical processes (atoms colliding), there is no reason to trust that our thoughts are "true" rather than just "advantageous for survival."

• The Conclusion: Trusting in an infinite, rational Mind (God) as the source of our finite minds provides a logical foundation for why we can trust logic, mathematics, and the laws of nature in the first place.

2. The Historical Anchor: The Reliability of Jesus

For many, trust isn't placed in a generic "higher power," but in a specific historical figure. This moves trust from "abstract philosophy" to "empirical data."

• The Argument: Unlike other religious claims, Christianity is pinned to a historical event: the Resurrection. Rational trust is built on the fact that the early disciples—who were in a position to know the truth—transformed from cowards to martyrs, and the "empty tomb" remains the most debated yet un-refuted event of antiquity.

• The Conclusion: If the Resurrection is historically probable, then the character of the Person who rose (Jesus) is proven trustworthy. Trusting God becomes a logical response to a verified historical "signal."

3. The Moral Argument: The Source of "Ought"

Rationalists often struggle to explain objective morality in a purely materialistic universe.

• The Argument: We all live as if "evil" is a real thing, not just a biological preference. If there is no God, morality is a social construct. However, if objective moral values exist (e.g., "it is always wrong to torture an innocent"), there must be an objective standard for them.

• The Conclusion: Trusting God is a recognition that our internal moral compass is aligned with an external Reality. It is more rational to trust that our sense of justice is real than to believe it is a useful delusion.

4. Relational Induction: The "Track Record"

In any other context, we trust people based on a track record.

• The Argument: A believer looks at "answered prayers" or "internal peace" not as scientific proofs for others, but as relational data for themselves. If I ask a friend for help 100 times and they show up in unexpected ways 90 times, it is rational for me to trust them the 101st time.

• The Conclusion: While a skeptic calls this "confirmation bias," a rationalist sees it as Bayesian inference. They are updating their probability of God’s reliability based on repeated, lived experience.

---

Final Summary

The most robust answer is that trust in God is a "Leap of Reason," not a "Leap into the Dark." It is the conclusion that:

1. Existence requires a Necessary Cause.

2. Reason requires a Rational Source.

3. Morality requires an Objective Standard.

4. History provides a Specific Person (Jesus) who demonstrated all three.

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." — C.S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)

The Judgment of the Canaanites was not Genocide

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.