Argument from Reason
Encyclopedia
The Argument from Reason is an argument for the existence of God
(at least as a supernatural instantiater of human reason) largely developed by C.S. Lewis.
The argument against materialism holds:
The argument for the existence of God holds:
away as axiomatically false. Thus it is better not be thought of as a proof of God's existence, but as an attempt to disprove naturalistic materialism. Naturalistic materialism is the worldview held by most atheists and, therefore, the argument often is referenced as a proof of God's existence.
With regard to element one, for example, the sound made by wind in the trees cannot be true or false because it comes from a non-rational source. The wind in the trees, therefore, is not about anything for which it could be true or false. The statement that a premise is true or false implies an answer to the question "about what?" that non-rational premises cannot possess.
To explain conclusion one in Miracles
, Lewis quotes J. B. S. Haldane
who appeals to a similar line of reasoning when he says on page 209 of Possible Worlds
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of [physical materials] in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of [physical materials]."
This argument further assumes that rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality, element eight. Why not? Why could not material elements at some point have arranged themselves in such a way that rationality would arise?
The answer given is that rationality is something different in kind than physical material. By using one's reasoning power we by direct power force particles in our brain to move in ways they would not have moved apart from this power. Rationality is the governor not the governed. Particles that before moved only as the result of physical causes now move in response to logical grounds, i.e. rational causes. If they did not, then choice is an illusion because choice implies a decision made for reasons beyond physical compulsion. And thus, if we could not control physical particles rationally, we therefore could not choose whether an assertion is true or false (see element five).
Defenders of the argument believe that one cannot form a combination of one thing to create another which is different in kind from it. As example, say we definitively found that there exists two and only two kinds of irreducible physical particles A and B. One could not combine A with itself to produce B. B is different in kind than A. Similarly, Hume teaches that you cannot reach a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood (i.e. you can't get an ought from an is). Assertions in the one mood are different in kind from assertions in the other. Therefore, likewise the rational ability to control matter cannot arise from mere matter itself (i.e. element eight).
The argument claims, even if the universe has always existed and is uncreated, this argument holds that it would not be possible for non-rational materials to arrange themselves in such a way that rationality would arise. Therefore, a rational being that did not begin to exist is required for the assumption that humans can be convinced by argument to be upheld.
Some believe there is a problem with denying element nine. If rationality could spontaneously enter our experience, where would it come from? That is, the denial of element nine implies existence springing forth from non existence, which is impossible (See Aristotle
, Metaphysics III, 4, 999b, 8; Arguing that the impossibility that generation should take place from nothing is self-evident).
Some note that the rationality of a computer is not a counter to this argument. A computer derives its rationality from its rational creator, a human mind. The argument holds (element eleven) that human rationality ultimately has a rational source that did not begin to exist, namely God (element twelve). Only rational entities that do not ultimately trace back to a rational being that did not begin to exist run counter to the argument.
Further defenses include, the assertion that, per quantum mechanics, some particles might enter the universe wholly randomly does not thwart the argument. This does not satisfy the need, see element five, for a rational process in order to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim.
The argument does not portend to provide a proof of anything but a non-physical, rational being that did not begin to exist. This is all that is meant by conclusion two.
. Anscombe was a student of Wittgenstein, a student of philosophy but also a convert to Catholicism. At the Socratic Club debate, she argued against Lewis's position: she was not attacking his faith, but the philosophical validity of his argument. Lewis must have accepted the criticisms, since he later rewrote the chapter: changing the title from "Naturalism is Self-Refuting" to the less ambitious "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism."
According to George Sayer
, Lewis's friend and biographer, Lewis regarded the debate as a defeat, and felt humiliated by it:
Victor Reppert
, an American philosopher and proponent of Lewis' argument, has made the case that Sayer misrepresented the events at Anscombe .
Additionally, the Socratic Club did not report such a dramatic and humiliating defeat, merely recording that:
"In general it appeared that Mr. Lewis would have to turn his argument into a rigorous analytic one, if his motion were to stand the test of all the questions put to him."
Anscombe herself did not remember "humiliating" or "defeating" Lewis. She wrote:
, William Hasker
and Alvin Plantinga
have expanded on the so-called "Argument from Reason" and credit C.S. Lewis—who called it "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism," the title of chapter three of the book—with first bringing the argument to light in Miracles.
In short the argument holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.
By this logic, the statement "I have reason to believe naturalism is valid" is self-referentially incoherent in the same manner as the sentence "One of the words of this sentence does not have the meaning that it appears to have." or the statement "I never tell the truth" . That is, in each case to assume the veracity of the conclusion would eliminate the possibility of valid grounds from which to reach it. To summarize the argument in the book, Lewis quotes J. B. S. Haldane
who appeals to a similar line of reasoning:
New York University
philosopher Thomas Nagel
thinks the argument rules out the coherence of physicalism
. He writes in The Last Word:
Arthur Schopenhauer
makes a similar claim in The World as Will and Representation
In his essay Is Theology Poetry, Lewis himself summarises the argument in a similar fashion when he writes:
Lewis is frequently credited with bringing the argument to prominence; however a roughly contemporaneous version can be found in G.K. Chesterton's 1908 book Orthodoxy
. In the third chapter, entitled "The Suicide of Thought," Chesterton elaborates on a very similar argument. He writes:
Similarly Chesterton asserts that the argument is a fundamental, if unstated, tenant of Thomism
in his book St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox
The argument is, in effect, one for mind-body dualism. In 21st century philosophic discussion, the argument is closely related to David Chalmers
's hard problems of consciousness, Jaegwon Kim
and the problem of mental causation
, and debates concerning the incompatibility of naturalism
and free will
.
The original version of Miracles contained a different version of chapter 3 entitled "The Self-Contradiction of the Naturalist." In it, Lewis made virtually the same argument but did not distinguish between physical causes of beliefs and rational grounds of beliefs. He also referred to atomic motions in the brain as "irrational." In a Socratic Club
debate, G.E.M. Anscombe criticized this, accusing him of taking advantage of ambiguous meanings of the words "why", "because", and "explanation", which prompted Lewis to revise the chapter. The revised chapter presents a more detailed elucidation of the argument, distinguishing clearly between the causes of beliefs and the grounds of beliefs, and also changing most uses of "irrational" to "non-rational". G.E.M. Anscombe commented on the process after Lewis's death:
Existence of God
Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. In philosophical terms, arguments for and against the existence of God involve primarily the sub-disciplines of epistemology and ontology , but also of the theory of value, since...
(at least as a supernatural instantiater of human reason) largely developed by C.S. Lewis.
The argument
C.S. Lewis originally posited the argument as follows:The argument against materialism holds:
- For an assertionAssertionThe term assertion has several meanings:* Assertion , a computer programming technique* Logical assertion, logical assertion of a statement* Proof by assertion, an assertion as opposed to an argument...
to be capable of truthTruthTruth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common usage, it also means constancy or sincerity in action or character...
or falsehoodLieFor other uses, see Lie A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others....
it must come from a rational source (see explanation below). - No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitutes a rational source. (i.e. anti-panpsychismPanpsychismIn philosophy, panpsychism is the view that all matter has a mental aspect, or, alternatively, all objects have a unified center of experience or point of view...
) - Therefore, no assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source.
- The assertions of human minds are capable of truth or falsehood
- Conclusion: Therefore, human minds are not a merely physical source (see explanation below).
The argument for the existence of God holds:
- (5) A being requires a rational process to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim (hereinafter, to be convinced by argument).
- (6) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a rational source.
- (7) Therefore, considering element two above, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a non-physical (as well as rational) source.
- (8) Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. That is, no arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing.
- (9) No being that begins to exist can be rational except through reliance, ultimately, on a rational being that did not begin to existEternityWhile in the popular mind, eternity often simply means existence for a limitless amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside time. By contrast, infinite temporal existence is then called sempiternity. Something eternal exists outside time; by contrast,...
. That is, rationality does not arise spontaneously from out of nothing but only from another rationality. - (10) All humans began to exist at some point in time.
- (11) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, there must be a necessary and rational being on which their rationality ultimately relies.
- Conclusion: This being we call God.
Limits and explanations of the argument
The argument as stated is not strictly a proof of God's existence because it requires the assumption that humans can assess the truth or falsehood of claims or that humans can be convinced by argument. The assumption that humans can assess the truth or falsehood of claims is undeniable because its very denial requires one to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim, namely the assumption itself. The only possible alternatives are either to accept the claim or be content to accept or reject no claims whatsoever. This argument fails to address the validity of human assessment. Assuming that all assessments of truth and falsehood made by humans are valid, and therefore rational. Moreover, the argument assumes panpsychismPanpsychism
In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that all matter has a mental aspect, or, alternatively, all objects have a unified center of experience or point of view...
away as axiomatically false. Thus it is better not be thought of as a proof of God's existence, but as an attempt to disprove naturalistic materialism. Naturalistic materialism is the worldview held by most atheists and, therefore, the argument often is referenced as a proof of God's existence.
With regard to element one, for example, the sound made by wind in the trees cannot be true or false because it comes from a non-rational source. The wind in the trees, therefore, is not about anything for which it could be true or false. The statement that a premise is true or false implies an answer to the question "about what?" that non-rational premises cannot possess.
To explain conclusion one in Miracles
Miracles (book)
Miracles is a book written by C. S. Lewis, originally published in 1947 and revised in 1960. Lewis argues that before one can learn from the study of history whether or not any miracles have ever occurred, one must first settle the philosophical question of whether it is logically possible that...
, Lewis quotes J. B. S. Haldane
J. B. S. Haldane
John Burdon Sanderson Haldane FRS , known as Jack , was a British-born geneticist and evolutionary biologist. A staunch Marxist, he was critical of Britain's role in the Suez Crisis, and chose to leave Oxford and moved to India and became an Indian citizen...
who appeals to a similar line of reasoning when he says on page 209 of Possible Worlds
Possible Worlds
Possible Worlds may refer to:* Possible worlds, a concept in philosophy* Possible Worlds , by John Mighton** Possible Worlds , by Robert Lepage, based on the Mighton play* Possible Worlds , by Peter Porter...
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of [physical materials] in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of [physical materials]."
This argument further assumes that rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality, element eight. Why not? Why could not material elements at some point have arranged themselves in such a way that rationality would arise?
The answer given is that rationality is something different in kind than physical material. By using one's reasoning power we by direct power force particles in our brain to move in ways they would not have moved apart from this power. Rationality is the governor not the governed. Particles that before moved only as the result of physical causes now move in response to logical grounds, i.e. rational causes. If they did not, then choice is an illusion because choice implies a decision made for reasons beyond physical compulsion. And thus, if we could not control physical particles rationally, we therefore could not choose whether an assertion is true or false (see element five).
Defenders of the argument believe that one cannot form a combination of one thing to create another which is different in kind from it. As example, say we definitively found that there exists two and only two kinds of irreducible physical particles A and B. One could not combine A with itself to produce B. B is different in kind than A. Similarly, Hume teaches that you cannot reach a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood (i.e. you can't get an ought from an is). Assertions in the one mood are different in kind from assertions in the other. Therefore, likewise the rational ability to control matter cannot arise from mere matter itself (i.e. element eight).
The argument claims, even if the universe has always existed and is uncreated, this argument holds that it would not be possible for non-rational materials to arrange themselves in such a way that rationality would arise. Therefore, a rational being that did not begin to exist is required for the assumption that humans can be convinced by argument to be upheld.
Some believe there is a problem with denying element nine. If rationality could spontaneously enter our experience, where would it come from? That is, the denial of element nine implies existence springing forth from non existence, which is impossible (See Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and polymath, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology...
, Metaphysics III, 4, 999b, 8; Arguing that the impossibility that generation should take place from nothing is self-evident).
Some note that the rationality of a computer is not a counter to this argument. A computer derives its rationality from its rational creator, a human mind. The argument holds (element eleven) that human rationality ultimately has a rational source that did not begin to exist, namely God (element twelve). Only rational entities that do not ultimately trace back to a rational being that did not begin to exist run counter to the argument.
Further defenses include, the assertion that, per quantum mechanics, some particles might enter the universe wholly randomly does not thwart the argument. This does not satisfy the need, see element five, for a rational process in order to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim.
The argument does not portend to provide a proof of anything but a non-physical, rational being that did not begin to exist. This is all that is meant by conclusion two.
Criticisms
On 2 February 1948, Elizabeth Anscombe read a paper criticizing the third chapter of C.S Lewis's Miracles to the Oxford Socratic ClubSocratic Club
The Oxford Socratic Club was formed in December 1941, at Oxford University, by Stella Aldwinckle of the Oxford Pastorate and a group of undergraduate students, in order to provide "an open forum for the discussion of the intellectual difficulties connected with religion and with Christianity in...
. Anscombe was a student of Wittgenstein, a student of philosophy but also a convert to Catholicism. At the Socratic Club debate, she argued against Lewis's position: she was not attacking his faith, but the philosophical validity of his argument. Lewis must have accepted the criticisms, since he later rewrote the chapter: changing the title from "Naturalism is Self-Refuting" to the less ambitious "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism."
According to George Sayer
George Sayer
George Sydney Benedict Sayer born at Bradfield, Berkshire, England, was a teacher in a famous English school and is probably best known for his biography of the author C. S. Lewis.-Career:...
, Lewis's friend and biographer, Lewis regarded the debate as a defeat, and felt humiliated by it:
Victor Reppert
Victor Reppert
Dr. Victor Reppert is an American philosopher best known for his development of the Argument from Reason. He is the author of C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea and numerous academic papers in journals such as Christian Scholars' Review, International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Philo and...
, an American philosopher and proponent of Lewis' argument, has made the case that Sayer misrepresented the events at Anscombe .
Additionally, the Socratic Club did not report such a dramatic and humiliating defeat, merely recording that:
"In general it appeared that Mr. Lewis would have to turn his argument into a rigorous analytic one, if his motion were to stand the test of all the questions put to him."
Anscombe herself did not remember "humiliating" or "defeating" Lewis. She wrote:
Similar views by other philosophers
Philosophers such as Victor ReppertVictor Reppert
Dr. Victor Reppert is an American philosopher best known for his development of the Argument from Reason. He is the author of C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea and numerous academic papers in journals such as Christian Scholars' Review, International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Philo and...
, William Hasker
William Hasker
R. William Hasker is an American Christian philosopher and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of philosophy at Huntington University. For many years he was editor of the prestigious journal Faith and Philosophy. He has published many journal articles and books dealing with issues such as the...
and Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Carl Plantinga is an American analytic philosopher and the emeritus John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He is known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and Christian apologetics...
have expanded on the so-called "Argument from Reason" and credit C.S. Lewis—who called it "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism," the title of chapter three of the book—with first bringing the argument to light in Miracles.
In short the argument holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.
By this logic, the statement "I have reason to believe naturalism is valid" is self-referentially incoherent in the same manner as the sentence "One of the words of this sentence does not have the meaning that it appears to have." or the statement "I never tell the truth" . That is, in each case to assume the veracity of the conclusion would eliminate the possibility of valid grounds from which to reach it. To summarize the argument in the book, Lewis quotes J. B. S. Haldane
J. B. S. Haldane
John Burdon Sanderson Haldane FRS , known as Jack , was a British-born geneticist and evolutionary biologist. A staunch Marxist, he was critical of Britain's role in the Suez Crisis, and chose to leave Oxford and moved to India and became an Indian citizen...
who appeals to a similar line of reasoning:
New York University
New York University
New York University is a private, nonsectarian research university based in New York City. NYU's main campus is situated in the Greenwich Village section of Manhattan...
philosopher Thomas Nagel
Thomas Nagel
Thomas Nagel is an American philosopher, currently University Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University, where he has taught since 1980. His main areas of philosophical interest are philosophy of mind, political philosophy and ethics...
thinks the argument rules out the coherence of physicalism
Physicalism
Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things...
. He writes in The Last Word:
Arthur Schopenhauer
Arthur Schopenhauer
Arthur Schopenhauer was a German philosopher known for his pessimism and philosophical clarity. At age 25, he published his doctoral dissertation, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which examined the four separate manifestations of reason in the phenomenal...
makes a similar claim in The World as Will and Representation
The World as Will and Representation
The World as Will and Representation is the central work of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. The first edition was published in December 1818, and the second expanded edition in 1844. In 1948, an abridged version was edited by Thomas Mann....
In his essay Is Theology Poetry, Lewis himself summarises the argument in a similar fashion when he writes:
Lewis is frequently credited with bringing the argument to prominence; however a roughly contemporaneous version can be found in G.K. Chesterton's 1908 book Orthodoxy
Orthodoxy
The word orthodox, from Greek orthos + doxa , is generally used to mean the adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion...
. In the third chapter, entitled "The Suicide of Thought," Chesterton elaborates on a very similar argument. He writes:
Similarly Chesterton asserts that the argument is a fundamental, if unstated, tenant of Thomism
Thomism
Thomism is the philosophical school that arose as a legacy of the work and thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, philosopher, theologian, and Doctor of the Church. In philosophy, his commentaries on Aristotle are his most lasting contribution...
in his book St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox
The argument is, in effect, one for mind-body dualism. In 21st century philosophic discussion, the argument is closely related to David Chalmers
David Chalmers
David John Chalmers is an Australian philosopher specializing in the area of philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, whose recent work concerns verbal disputes. He is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University...
's hard problems of consciousness, Jaegwon Kim
Jaegwon Kim
Jaegwon Kim is a Korean American philosopher currently working at Brown University. He is best known for his work on mental causation and the mind-body problem. Key themes in his work include: a rejection of Cartesian metaphysics, the limitations of strict psychophysical identity, supervenience,...
and the problem of mental causation
Problem of mental causation
The problem of mental causation is a conceptual issue in the philosophy of mind. That problem, in short, is how to account for the common-sense idea that intentional thoughts or intentional mental states are causes of intentional actions...
, and debates concerning the incompatibility of naturalism
Naturalism (philosophy)
Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical viewpoint that the natural universe and its natural laws and forces operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe that we know...
and free will
Free will
"To make my own decisions whether I am successful or not due to uncontrollable forces" -Troy MorrisonA pragmatic definition of free willFree will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long...
.
The original version of Miracles contained a different version of chapter 3 entitled "The Self-Contradiction of the Naturalist." In it, Lewis made virtually the same argument but did not distinguish between physical causes of beliefs and rational grounds of beliefs. He also referred to atomic motions in the brain as "irrational." In a Socratic Club
Socratic Club
The Oxford Socratic Club was formed in December 1941, at Oxford University, by Stella Aldwinckle of the Oxford Pastorate and a group of undergraduate students, in order to provide "an open forum for the discussion of the intellectual difficulties connected with religion and with Christianity in...
debate, G.E.M. Anscombe criticized this, accusing him of taking advantage of ambiguous meanings of the words "why", "because", and "explanation", which prompted Lewis to revise the chapter. The revised chapter presents a more detailed elucidation of the argument, distinguishing clearly between the causes of beliefs and the grounds of beliefs, and also changing most uses of "irrational" to "non-rational". G.E.M. Anscombe commented on the process after Lewis's death:
Further reading
- John Beversluis C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. erdmans, 1985. ISBN 0-8028-0046-7
- C.S. Lewis Miracles. London & Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1947. Revised 1960. (Current edition: Fount, 2002. ISBN 0006280943)