Intuition is the basis of reasoning; it allows us to grasp whatever conclusions we have from premises or safe generalizations from particular occurrences.
Faith is realized through intuition; faith based on (sufficient) reasons isn't faith. Because faith is based intuitively, it allows the "leap" that constitutes it to be possible: we "leap" over rational gaps, and this act of leaping is (at least essentially) what faith is. In the act of faith we trust intuition -- even in the face of madness -- over our demand for evidence, and in some cases over our reasoning over certain snippets of evidence.
If faith is based intuitively, and reason is based intuitively, how does a lack of the latter make the former absurd? If one "feels" that God (or a "something" pragmatically labeled as God) exists, in a sense purely before religious concepts, what is to say that this feeling isn't enough? This feeling, this intuitive "click", if thrown out in a particular instance, is thrown out momentarily as a rule; and if one is consistent, this would mean to throw out reason as well, and so the argument against intuition falls apart.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment