First off, thanks for the discussion! I think it’s been a good one, and am happy to agree to disagree – after one last post (haha). You pointed out that I hadn’t really provided a solid argument to doubt that material processes could give rise to reason. I think it’s only fitting that my final post be an attempt to do so.
According to Naturalism (or, more strictly speaking, materialism) everything in the universe is made up of nothing more than mindless matter – like protons, neutrons, and electrons. These particles behave, not according to the laws of logic, but according to the laws of physics. They lack intentionality, or ‘aboutness’. Physics, at its most basic level, makes no reference to purposes or logic whatsoever. To say that one bit of matter can be true (or false) about another bit of matter seems to me to be nonsensical. But what does this have to do with the relationship between our thoughts (as a psychological event) and our brains?
A boulder rolls down a hill due to nothing more than the forces acting upon it, and it can no more alter its trajectory to avoid hitting someone as a person falling from a building can ignore gravity. Now, if Naturalism is true, than our brains are nothing more than mere mindless matter, no different than the boulder rolling down the hill. It’s true that our brains are much more complex than a boulder, and are made up of more complicated molecules than a hunk of granite, but nevertheless, both the boulder and our brains are made up of nothing more than atoms. And atoms can behave only according to the laws of physics, not the laws of logic. If that’s true, than our thoughts (since they, according to Naturalism, supervene exclusively upon the brain) are nothing more than the motion of atoms, which behave according to the laws of physics. If that’s true, then, just as rock rolling down a hill cannot alter its trajectory to avoid killing a person, the atoms in the brains that give rise to our thoughts cannot alter their behavior to reach truth or avoid falsity. As Lewis points out, this leaves no room for grounds (or logic) to determine what we believe; “how could such a trifle as lack of logical grounds prevent the belief’s occurrence, or how could the existence of grounds promote it”? It seems to me as though Naturalism leaves no room for our thoughts to be determined by grounds, or logic, or ‘the truth known’, and are merely the result of blind causality and mindless physics. A person holds a belief, not because they see that it is true, but purely because the motion of the atoms in their brains determined that the belief would be formed, regardless of the belief’s actual truth. This, to me, kills reason.
Anyway, this, I think, is the best summation I can provide of the argument in such a short span and with my admittedly amateurish knowledge.
It was good talking to you, Helpful Atheist - good luck with school!
