A Flawed Path to Divine Proof
Argument from Reason
The Argument from Reason suggests that the human capacity for logic, reasoning, and rational thought cannot be adequately explained by natural processes alone. Proponents of this view argue that these cognitive abilities point to the existence of a divine mind that imparts this capacity to humans. On the surface, this argument feels intuitive, but it is based on a misunderstanding of how human cognition works and the nature of reasoning itself.
In this exploration, I’ll take a closer look at the Argument from Reason, explain why it ultimately fails to prove the existence of a deity, and offer a perspective that places human reasoning firmly within the realm of natural processes.
The Core of the Argument
The Argument from Reason is built on several key premises:
Human reasoning is unique and reliable – Our ability to grasp abstract concepts, engage in logical thought, and make sense of the world is presented as evidence of something more than just natural processes.
Naturalistic explanations are insufficient – It’s argued that evolutionary mechanisms and materialistic processes cannot account for the emergence of rational thought.
Reason reflects divine origin – If reason cannot arise naturally, proponents conclude that it must come from a higher, divine mind that imparts this capacity to humans.
At the heart of this argument is the suggestion that the human ability to reason is a “miracle” of sorts, something that couldn’t possibly have arisen from non-rational causes. The logic here draws a parallel with the broader Transcendental Argument, which claims that faculties like logic, morality, and mathematics all require a divine foundation. Proponents believe that by placing the Argument from Reason within this broader framework, they can strengthen their case for the necessity of a god.
Finding Meaning in Coincidence: A Personal Anecdote
To illustrate how easily we misattribute meaning, consider this story:
A colleague misplaced her phone, and it was eventually found in an unlikely location by pure chance. Someone, after hearing this, exclaimed, “There is a God, and He is protecting her.”
This reaction is a classic example of the human tendency to seek patterns and assign meaning to events - even when no real connection exists. The same way my colleague assumed divine intervention played a role in finding her phone, proponents of the Argument from Reason similarly conclude that the human capacity for reasoning must be attributed to a supernatural cause. In both cases, we’re reading meaning into something that may simply be a coincidence or a natural outcome of other forces.
Why the Argument from Reason Fails
Let’s break down why this argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
1. Reason as a Product of Evolution
Proponents of the Argument from Reason often dismiss naturalistic explanations like evolution, but evolution provides a solid framework for understanding how reasoning abilities developed.
Reasoning evolved because it conferred survival advantages. Humans who could think critically about cause and effect, plan ahead, and cooperate effectively were more likely to survive and reproduce. Over generations, natural selection refined these cognitive abilities, leading to the complex reasoning processes we rely on today.
Reason is sophisticated, yes, but it’s also an emergent property of evolution, just like vision or language. It’s not a product of divine intervention—it’s the result of natural processes over time.
2. Reliability Doesn’t Imply Divinity
A common claim in the Argument from Reason is that because human reasoning is reliable, it must come from a perfect, divine source. But we know that human reasoning is far from infallible. Cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and emotional influences often skew our reasoning and decision-making.
The reliability of reason can be better explained by its utility. Our brains evolved to process information in ways that enhance survival. Logical consistency and pattern recognition are byproducts of this evolutionary process, not evidence of a divine mind behind it.
3. Misunderstanding Cause and Effect
The Argument from Reason insists that non-rational causes cannot produce rational effects. But this misunderstands causality. Complex phenomena often emerge from simpler processes, such as:
Non-living chemicals leading to the emergence of life.
Simple neural networks evolving into the sophisticated human brain.
Basic trial-and-error processes resulting in abstract reasoning.
Emergent properties like reason don’t require a divine origin—they emerge naturally from the interplay of simpler components.
4. Appeal to Ignorance
At its core, the Argument from Reason is an argument from ignorance. It assumes that because we can’t fully explain the origins of reasoning, or because naturalistic explanations seem inadequate, a divine explanation must be true. This is a logical fallacy.
There are countless historical examples where phenomena once attributed to divine causes have later been explained through science. Lightning was once thought to be the wrath of gods; now we understand it as an atmospheric discharge. Similarly, the gaps in our understanding of reasoning don’t require supernatural explanations—they simply highlight areas for future investigation.
The Human Tendency to Attribute Meaning
This tendency to read meaning into random events, as demonstrated by the misplaced phone anecdote, is a key point. Humans are meaning-making creatures by nature. We instinctively seek patterns and create narratives, even when they don’t exist. This likely evolved as a survival mechanism. Early humans who assumed that the rustling of a bush might signal a predator were more likely to survive than those who ignored it.
The Argument from Reason taps into this human tendency by suggesting that reason itself must have an intentional, meaningful origin. But this is an example of circular reasoning:
Humans have reason.
Reason must come from a rational source.
Therefore, a divine mind exists.
This conclusion assumes what it sets out to prove, offering no independent evidence to support it.
Conclusion: A Flawed Argument
The Argument from Reason may seem compelling to those who find human cognition uniquely mysterious, but it falls apart upon closer examination. Human reason is neither supernatural nor inexplicable. It is an emergent property of natural processes that evolved over time for practical purposes.
Just as we can admire the complexity of a spider’s web without assuming divine craftsmanship, we can marvel at human reasoning without attributing it to a god. By understanding the natural origins of reasoning, we gain a deeper appreciation for its power—and for the remarkable processes that have shaped it over millions of years.
Sources
Beilby, J. K. (Ed.). (2002). Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Cornell University Press.
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray.
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster.
Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve.
Nagel, T. (1997). The Last Word. Oxford University Press.
Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. W. W. Norton & Company.
Ruse, M. (1986). Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy. Blackwell.
Shermer, M. (2000). How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Wilson, E. O. (1978). On Human Nature. Harvard University Press.