The argument from objective cognitive values
This is another version of the argument from reason which occurs to me.
1. Probably, if naturalism is true, there are no objective epistemic values.
2. There are objective epistemic values.
3. Therefore, probably, naturalism is false.
The idea here is that there is a problem in the area of cognitive values similar to the problem of moral values. Only, in the case of moral values, a subjectivist response seems plausible. In the case of cognitive values, a subjectivist response doesn't seem available.
Thomas Nagel wrote:
Reason, if there is such a thing, can serve as a court of appeal not only against the received opinions and habits of our community, but also against the peculiarities of our personal perspective. It is something each individual can find within himself, but at the same time has universal authority. Reason provides, mysteriously, a way of distancing oneself from common opinion and received practices that is not a mere elevation of individuality—not a determination to express one’s idiosyncratic self rather than go along with everyone else. Whoever appeals to reason purports to discover a source of authority within himself that is not merely personal, societal, but universal, and that should persuade others who are willing to listen to it.
Consider this statement, from the Talkorigins website.
Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.
Now this is not something that someone can say who is a subjectivist about epistemic value. If some social group, such as a creationist organization, says that their goal is to reconcile whatever scientific evidence there is to the Word of God, and that is considered a worthwhile goal in that society (as it most certainly is), then all ground for complaining about it is removed. All you can say is "This language game is played."