Naturalism and the argument from reason

The belief that reason leads us to true knowledge is the fundamental principle which undergirds every research area. This belief is so certain that we can't engage in reasoning without it. We can't even call into question its reality without employing reason. Because we have to rely on reason for this questioning. However if naturalism is true this belief gets into danger. Since according to naturalism reason is a byproduct of mindless physical processes. If reason is the result of nonrational and nonpurposive physical processes, natural explanation of reason can't serve a foundation for the belief that reason is reliable. For that reason naturalism which is presented as a rational worldview, is self-defeating. In contrast, according to theism reason takes its source from a supernatural and rational being. Reason is not a natural result instead it is the cause of existence and reality. If there is a personal God who wants us to gain true knowledge we have a valid guarantee to rely on reason. My dissertation addresses the question of whether it is naturalism or theism which plausaibly explains the existance of reasoning or process of logical inference that we engage in to conduct both scientific research and daily life. I will argue that reason and the conditions for reasoning support theism in the light of the argument from reason developed by philosophers who argue that naturalism explains away reason and doesn't serve a foundation for its reliability. My thesis is that the only idea which rationally explains the existence of reason is theism and that is why the faculty of reasoning is a strong evidence against naturalism.