Argument From Reason

👍 (2)

P1: If our beliefs and inferences are entirely the product of non-rational, physical causes (e.g. neurons firing due to physics/chemistry), then we have no justification to trust the rationality of our conclusions, including belief in naturalism itself. (Because physical causation does not entail logical entailment.)

P2. Rational inferences (e.g., modus ponens, mathematics, ethics) involve normative relations, we ought to believe conclusions because they follow logically, not just because they are caused. (E.g., “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. ∴ Socrates is mortal.”)

P3: Normative rationality (i.e., the capacity to form beliefs based on logical grounds, not just causes) cannot be reduced to non-rational, material processes.

P4: If materialistic naturalism cannot ground rational normativity, but our rational faculties are normatively structured (and they are), then naturalism is an insufficient explanation for reason. (From P1–P3)

P5: Theism offers a better explanation:

If a personal, rational, necessarily existent mind (i.e., God) created humans with intentionality and reason, then rational norms can be grounded in divine reason. (God is the source of all knowledge and truth.)

P6: If our rationality is grounded in the will and intellect of a necessary being, then belief in our own reasoning capacity is justified including belief in logic, mathematics, and science.(Because these mirror, in part, the rational structure of the divine intellect.)

P7: Therefore, belief in a transcendent, rational Creator is the best explanation for the reality of reason and rational inference.

C: Therefore, there exists a transcendent, necessarily existent, rational mind that grounds human reason and this being is God.