Argument from Reason

Definitions

Ground/consequent relationship: For a belief to be rationally inferred, it must be a consequent inferred from a reasonable ground. "There are puddles outside" would be a reasonable ground for inferring that "it rained."

Cause/effect relationship: A physical cause and a physical effect. The rock rolls down the hill and hits another rock. The thunderstorm dumps rain on a town. None of these processes can be described as rational or irrational. They are *non*-rational.

The Argument

1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of cause/effect
2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of cause/effect
3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.

Proof of Validity

The argument is logically valid:

1. 1. No R* is C*
2. 2. All B* is C
3. 3. Therefore, no B is R

I used the star test to prove validity. So the conclusion follows if the premises are true. The only ground for denying the conclusion is to deny one of the premises.

Options for Rebuttal

Deny Premise 1

You would have to affirm the following proposition:

• Beliefs are rationally inferred if they are fully explained in terms of cause/effect

This is false by definition and thus not an option. If a belief is acquired by the motion of physical matter and energy, then it is non-rational.

Deny Premise 2

You would have to affirm the following proposition:

• Not all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of cause/effect

This would mean in effect that dualism is true, or that mind exists as a fundamental constituent of the universe. In other words, it would be that naturalism is false.

Accept the Conclusion

Or, accept the conclusion that "no belief is rationally inferred."

The Trichotomy

While the argument does not prove naturalism false, it forces you to choose from the following propositions. Either:

• Beliefs acquired from cause/effect are rationally inferred
• Naturalism is false
• No belief is rationally inferred