Our ability to reason does not make sense under Athiesm
Under naturalism how can one explain that our ability to reason and rationalise came from random, non-rational processes.
It is a logical principle that a thing cannot give rise to another thing jf it does not contain it or if it does not have the ability to give rise to it.
Objections:
Objection 1: ‘God of the gaps’
This is not merely a gap in scientific knowledge. It is circular to suggest science will eventually be able to explain its own assumption
Reason
Objection 2: Darwinian evolution
Naturalistic evolution is an insufficient explanation
Firstly, our ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood is not a requirement for survival
Secondly, achieving mental insights is not a requirement for our continued existence
Thirdly, our desire to discover is often detrimental to our survival
Examples of false beliefs leading to survival, a bird may avoid caterpillars with certain types of colouring because they are poison, but will also avoid non poisonous caterpillars with similar characteristics
Our desire to discover also cannot be explained via naturalistic evolution
Why must we understand laws of physics or maths or understand the universe to survive
Bettles survive without discussion philosophy or anything else
What evolutionary need inspires us to put ourselves at risk eg by climbing mount everest or going on space missions, the desire to discover actually puts us at risk. Various scientists were confused by this issue like DNA discoverer Francis Crick. Charles Darwin doubted his reasoning abilities because of this
Objection 3: Emergent naturalism
States that a system of complex physical processes undergoing complex interactions can give rise to properties or phenomena that do not exist in the individual components that comprise the system. They may cite an example of H20, which contains physical properties not within hydrogen and oxygen.
However this is fallacious as this is a physical thing giving rise to another physical thing
The case of reason is a physical thing giving rise to a non physical thing(our ability to reason and form mental insights)
Objection 4:computers are rational
This is simply not the case
Computers have programmes based off syntactical rules(the manipulation of symbols) not senantics(meaning)
Simply put a computer or its system does not understand what the symbols mean