See this thread at the Evangelical Outpost.
Here is my complete commentary.
My observation is that it is no less reasonable for me to believe in the rationality of my thinking than to believe if I strike my head against a brick wall, it will hurt. Both are properly basic and are confirmed by my own experiences and conform coherently to the "web of beliefs" I hold.
My point is that the naturalist (EP, if you will) can't claim their belief in rationality to be properly basic while holding to naturalism. That is, they cannot establish that it is warranted to believe in the rationality of their thinking while being consistent with their belief in naturalism. Thus, they're seemingly left with the conclusion jpe offers:
I don't see why they couldn't just bite the bullet and claim that no one is actually a free and rational agent
Which is fine by me if they say that - but they generally don't. Rather, they continue to claim their belief system is "factually and reasonably superior to superstitions like religion". Such statement which requires them to have just refuted the claim that they aren't free, rational agents capable of reaching such a conclusion based on evidence, logic and choice, rather than the mere physical activity of their brain.