Comments on "Intuition" (2)
(The following is an edited response to an inquiry on the topic.)
Thanks for continuing your topic on "Arguing by Intuition." I am realizing that this method of argumentation is in fact widely used by many debaters, both Christians and non-Christians. I would like to suggest that the last part of your series be a suggestion on what other more valid forms of argumentation should directly replace that which you consider invalid.
Yes, appealing to bare intuition is all too common. And when one side of a debate does it, it is frequently left unchallenged by the other side, because the other side often intuitively agree (whether in content or in method). But both have no reliable basis for the premise.
As for the proper way to argue, this concerns one of the main thrusts of my approach to apologetics. I contend that the only way that a true and coherent worldview is obtained is by strict deduction from an infallible, undeniable, self-authenticating, and self-contained first principle. Therefore, instead of appealing to sensation or intuition, we should appeal to revelation — revelation is the only way out of epistemological skepticism.
I will mention some of this throughout the remaining articles in the series, but to get more details, please see the recommended readings, such as my Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations.
While I agree that revelation is a much stronger basis for ideas (being objective rather than subjective), couldn't someone argue that the road to revelation, (this is, either to discerning true revelation from false, or to receiving and comprehending revelation) by necessity demands some level of intuition? And if this is so, and intuition is invalid as a basis, what makes the interaction with revelation valid at all?
That someone could try to argue this is different from giving a sound argument for it. My brief answer is "No, no one could successfully argue this."
In any case, note that if this is true, then we are back to intuition again as our starting point. But if the same problems still apply (and they do), then we will never get to revelation at all, but we will again get stuck in arbitrariness and skepticism. If we must depend on intuition (or anything other than revelation, such as sensation) to "verify" or "get to" revelation, then the reliability and the breadth of revelation will never rise above the reliability and the breadth of the intuition (or sensation, etc.) that supposedly verifies or confirms it. You have pointed out as much.
No, it depends on your doctrine of revelation, how you argue for revelation, and how your worldview is structured. If a person is a consistent presuppositionalist, then this is not a problem. But many presuppositionalists are not consistent; therefore, you will see appeals to sensation and intuition in their arguments. But if you do not start from revelation, but start from something else on your way to make the claim that you start from revelation, this means that you do not really start from revelation at all, but something else. Remember, if there is a "road to" revelation at all, that means you do not start from revelation, and your ultimate authority is really not revelation, but whatever you depended on on your way there. But I am saying that we should really start from revelation and make valid deductions on that basis.
I do mention "innate knowledge" in my books, so to avoid confusion, I will explain the relationship between revelation and intution in the final parts of the series, although my books on philosophy and apologetics already explain this. (See the recommended readings.)
Moreover, there are several short articles planned for the blog that are also related to this.
For example, the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction) is undeniable. It is known not by arbitrary intution, but self-evident and undeniable "intuition" — that is, purely and directly in and by the mind apart from sensation. Why, then, is it not possible to make the law of contradiction our first principle? I will explain this in a future article. But again, if you can't wait, this is also already explained in Ultimate Questions and other books.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
(See www.rmiweb.org)
Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy
(See www.monergismbooks.com)
March 14 2005 | Apologetics, Philosophy, Theology