argument from reason

The most recent and one of the more famous proponents of this argument is Clive Staples (C. S.) Lewis. In Lewis' bookMiraclesthe third chapter deals with the self-contradiction of the Naturalist. Naturalism is defined as the world view that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual. This is the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all the teleological explanation are therefore without value. In its simplest form, this argument boils down to that without God, there could be no reason. We make inferences from observed facts, and we reason that our inferences are correct and sound. If reason is not absolute then reason is not reasonably logical, and all of our facts are no longer dependable nor true. So, reason must be absolute, and it must have come from God.

refutation :

The best way I found to counter this is with a simple counter-example. This argument is implying that all false beliefs are formed causally, based on reason. This however is what some call a Possibility Fallacy, that is assuming that having no explanation is equivalent to not being able to have one. Simply because it just so happens that all false beliefs are formed causally, it does not follow that all causally formed beliefs are false. it's like saying "lunch meat is often baloney, therefore all lunch meat is baloney."