Victor Reppert

[9] Reppert's reply to Parsons was the paper "Causal Closure, Mechanism, and Rational Inference",[10] which, since he felt it was time that more Christian philosophers were familiarized with the argument and related issues,[4] appeared in 2001 in Philosophia Christi.For Dennett, Reppert observes, Darwin's dangerous idea is that the latter "are the only acceptable types of explanation", a position that "has become orthodoxy in such varied disciplines as evolutionary biology, cognitive science and artificial intelligence", as well as "in Anglo-American philosophy in general"."[13] C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea attracted a lot of response, including some comments by critics, most notably Richard C. Carrier, who on Internet Infidels called the book "surely the most extensive defense of the so-called 'Argument from Reason' yet to appear in print."[17] Barefoot argued that Reppert had made a strong case for Lewis's claim "that the process of inference by which consideration of premises causes us to adopt a conclusion cannot be coherently conceived of in terms of physical cause-and-effect alone."Furthermore, if Reppert's version of the Argument from Reason "is successful, it reveals that rationality is fundamental to the universe, not simply a by-product of physical cause-and-effect; and this, in turn, is readily explicable on theism, but problematic for naturalism.
philosopherargument from reasonPhilosophia ChristiUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignBertrand RussellC. S. LewisnaturalismG. E. M. AnscombeSecular WebJim LippardThomas NagelTheodore M. DrangeWilliam HaskerDaniel DennettDarwin's Dangerous IdeaDarwinevolutionary biologycognitive scienceartificial intelligenceAnglo-American philosophyevidenceinferencereasoningRichard C. CarrierInternet InfidelspremisesArizona State UniversityintentionalityJohn SearleJerry FodorSocratic ClubMiraclesGod in the Dockthe Humean theories of miraclesGary R. HabermasPaul CopanWilliam Lane CraigJ.P. MorelandG. K. ChestertonOrthodoxyFirst Things