A Summary of the Argument for God from Reason

SETH DILLON

There are two primary competing metaphysical worldviews: naturalism and supernaturalism. The former is typically atheistic; the latter, some form of theism.

The naturalist believes that there is nothing beyond the natural world and that nature is a self-contained, closed system. It follows that whatever happens within the system can be fully explained without having to look beyond it for answers. The contents of the universe — from the largest galaxies to the smallest particles — mechanistically obey the laws of physics and chemistry. Every event is necessarily linked to prior events in a great causal chain that stretches all the way back to the beginning of the universe. There can be no exceptions. If naturalism is true, mindless, mechanistic causes are behind every event in history.

Against this backdrop, it becomes apparent that naturalism faces an insurmountable problem. If all events — including mental events — are ultimately the result of underlying physical, mechanistic causes, this calls into question the validity of rational thought. After all, beliefs are rational only if they are formed for good reasons. That is, they must be rooted in logical insight, not the laws of physics or chemistry. If our beliefs are produced by physical causes (e.g., neurochemical changes in the brain) then logical insight is simply irrelevant; it has no meaningful role to play in their formation.

If you were to ask a naturalist why he believes naturalism is true, he would, if he were honest, have to say, “Because a series of interconnected physical causes and effects that stretches back to the beginning of the universe eventually resulted in the current state of physical affairs — and in this current state of physical affairs, my brain chemistry is such that I find myself affirming naturalism as true.” For any belief that forms in a human mind, this is the only explanation naturalism allows. By leaving logical grounds and rational insight out of the picture — or at the very least reducing them to the point of irrelevance — naturalism discredits every belief, including the belief that naturalism is true.

The supernaturalist (i.e., theist) avoids this difficulty because he is not committed to viewing acts of reasoning as purely natural events. His explanatory resources are not limited to impersonal forces and mindless mechanisms. He is therefore able and willing to say that acts of reasoning are unique in the sense that they are independent from the interlocked, cause-and-effect system we call “nature.” They involve and, indeed, require a special kind of causation that naturalism cannot allow.

If reason cannot arise from a non-reasoning, mindless, mechanistic source, it must come, instead, from outside it — from a transcendent rational source. The best explanation is that our minds bring reason into nature because they were created by an eternal rational being: God.

Reason is fundamental. We cannot give it up just because it doesn’t fit within a naturalistic framework. We must give up naturalism instead.