The Argument from Reason

EDIT: I prefer Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism now

The Argument from Reason explains why the only reasonable belief in regards to the existence of God is that he exists.

Firstly, it must be admitted by both the atheist and the theist that there are at least some reasonably good arguments for both sides. Perhaps the cosmological argument for the theist; and the evidence for evolution for the atheist. One might conclude that one or both arguments are flawed in some way; but it could not be doubted that they make at least a degree of headway to proving the existence or non-existence of God.

However, what if there was no God? What has evolution bought us? I have eyes which are good for seeing; but they are short sighted. I have teeth which are good for chewing; but they will rot. I have a heart which is good for keeping me alive; but one day it will stop beating. It is clear that, whilst evolution has made us vastly more complex and better equipped creatures than single celled organisms, it has not made us perfect. Far from it. If this is true of my eyes, teeth, heart - every part of my body - then why should I not assume it is the same for my rational faculties - those mental faculties which determine reality using only reason?

Surely we must conclude that if there is no God, then our rational faculties are imperfect just like the rest of us. How imperfect are they? Perhaps we could suggest some sort of test of 'how good' our rational faculties are; but whatever the test is, it is inevitably flawed. In order to find this out, we would have to have perfect rational faculties to design and interpret the results of such a test! No, in regards to us determining how imperfect our rational faculties our a blind leading the blind situation.

Thus, we do not know to what degree we are irrational - but we do not have any good reason to believe that we have perfect rational faculties (in fact, if we were to assume perfection, we would find that evolution has occurred, and thus we are extremely unlikely to have perfect rational faculties!) This means that any argument which disproves, or puts in jeopardy the existence of God immediately defeats itself. Any such argument must rely on having perfect rational faculties in order for the argument to have any epistemic justification. Thus, to actually believe that God does not exist will inevitably be an unreasonable view - we will use our rational faculties to show that God does not exist which shows that we do not have truth-discerning rational faculties.

The atheist may counter that the theist has the same problem. However, I think that the theist's argument is actually strengthened by the argument from reason. Because not only must there be a God in order for us to have rational faculties - he must be an omnibenevolent God. For us to have rational faculties despite the rest of our body being flawed there must be a God who ensured that our faculties were rational such that we might be able to learn more about Him. Thus, the only epistemically justified belief to hold is that there is an omnibenevolent God who gave us rational faculties. Any other belief inevitably defeats itself.

At this point, I return to the initial consideration: that there are good arguments for and against the existence of God. As I believe I have shown, any argument against the existence of God defeats itself. These arguments thus fall away, and the only arguments which remain are arguments for the existence of God.

It would be possible for the atheist to counter that perhaps there is no God and we don't have rational faculties. He can say that if this case was true, then we would not know whether God exists (so the only reasonable position in regards to the existence of God would be "No idea"), and of course we would not know if we had rational faculties. We would be in a state of nihilism, of not knowing anything about ourselves, the universe, science and existence. I suppose that this view is epistemically 'justified' in so far as it doesn't defeat itself in the same way that arguments for atheism defeat themselves. In this way, whilst the person who says, "I believe that God doesn't exist"/"God almost certainly does not exist" is unjustified and his arguments defeat themselves, this nihilistic view is 'reasonable'.

It just isn't very nice.


(And given that there is no reason to choose this view over theism, I'll go with the view that allows me to know and think about philosophy, science, existence, beauty, and so forth, rather than answering any question on anything other than opinion with, "No idea")