The Argument From Reason

argumentfromreasonCan humans reason? And what is the argument from reason?

Very briefly, the argument from reason rests upon the fundamental differences between physical things and immaterial mental states.

For instance: How can a neuron recognize that an argument is valid? How can the laws of physics guide a brain to rationally calculate the likelihood of evolution? How can purposeless physical processes lead a thing to intentionally choose for ‘itself’? If everything is caused by the laws of science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) then what does it mean for someone’s mind to be changed by a spaceless, timeless, immaterial argument?

As a summary on Wikipedia puts one main variant of the argument:

In short the argument holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

These are the kinds of questions that, when pursued, lead us to conclude that naturalism is false. By contrast, the argument from reason can lend support to the conclusion that Christianity is true.

As an introduction to the topic, this is a vast oversimplification; for more detailed and careful analysis, see the following links!

Recommended articles:

Recommended Books:

Recommended Websites:

The Last Seminary” has an outstanding collection of articles on The Argument from Reason (some of the more accessible ones are linked above).

Recommended Videos:

The Argument From Reason by David Wood:

Alvin Plantinga on the EAAN:

Further Resources:

We offer other great resources on the best reasons for the existence of God: