Philosophy / Mind • Existence of God • Advanced
Argument from Reason
Primary question: Can naturalism account for rational inference?
Argument map
Click any node to inspect it. Expand branches to go deeper.
Common mistakes
Don't say
"Atheists can't think."
Instead
The argument is about what naturalism can justify, not about anyone's intelligence. Say so first.
Don't say
Confusing the argument with a rejection of evolution.
Instead
It targets naturalism plus evolution, not evolutionary biology itself.
What would change my mind? — Christian position
A robust naturalistic account of mental content's causal role and of truth-directed selection.
What would change my mind? — Skeptical position
Continued failure of physicalist theories of intentionality.
Why does this matter?
It reframes the debate: instead of religion being on trial before reason, the question becomes which worldview can account for reason at all.
For further study
Primary and secondary sources on both sides of this question. Reading the strongest opposing case is part of the work, not a concession.
C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea — Victor Reppert
The analytic development of Lewis's argument into distinct, assessable sub-arguments.
Miracles, chapter 3 — C. S. Lewis
Read the revised third edition, written after Anscombe's critique.
Where the Conflict Really Lies — Alvin Plantinga
Contains the mature statement of the EAAN.
Mind and Cosmos — Thomas Nagel
An atheist arguing that materialist neo-Darwinism probably cannot account for mind and reason.
Physicalism, or Something Near Enough — Jaegwon Kim
A physicalist's honest account of the causal exclusion problem.