(A) The Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness)

You will see a pattern arise in this post which I hope to follow through the entire series. First I’d like to give a history of the various arguments and note several of its key defenders through time. Then we will look at several versions of the argument as they are discussed in philosophy today and look at their flaws before I finally attempt to give my own version of the argument.

Let me first note that there is a major problem with this argument such that attempts to address it by individuals more qualified than I am come up short.  As much as I think about it, I really can’t over come the  issue.  Thus, I’ve decided to present my what I’ve got so far and see if I can come up with something later.

First of all, I am taking it for granted that everyone has read Alvin Plantinga’s “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments“ and knows what he has to say about the them.  Now, I feel that what Plantinga is calling the argument from intentionality is also what we call the argument from truth. My rationale for this has to do with the comment “Many have thought it incredible that propositions should exist apart from the activity of minds.” In the argument from truth, one tries to prove God’s existence on the basis that only his existence can account for the existence of some objectively true facts.

Then argument from truth finds its roots in the great theologian and philosopher Augustine of Hippo ( 354 – 430).  Augustine notes in his writings that we are able to know things about the real world (e.g. 2+2=4) and that these things are true outside of what any human believes. Therefore, there must be an objective mind which grasps the truth of these things from eternity passed (or something like that).

In more recent times, the argument from truth has been retooled by philosophers such as Gordon Clark and Ronald Nash. This new version looks something like this:

1. Truth exists.
2. Truth is immutable (unchangeable).
3. Truth is eternal.
4. Truth is mental (pertaining to mind or minds).
5. Truth is superior to the human mind.
Therefore, Truth is God.

Victor Reppert himself gives an argument from intentionality in his book, C.S. Lewis’ Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason. He contends that if there is an objective aboutness to any proposition, then naturalism cannot be true. His reason for this is that intentionality, the property of propositions which makes them about something, is not and cannot be a property of matter.  Instead, it must be a property of mind.  He believes that the only way to account for the existence rational inference and its counter parts is to adopt some sort of “explanatory dualism” over materialism.  Philosopher J. P. Moreland has also used the existence of intentionality to defend dualism in many places.

Another version of the argument from truth comes to us from YouTube apologist Telemantros, who finds Clark’s formulation to be problematic. He proposes his own version:

P1: If truth is ontologically transcendent from human minds, then God exists.
P2: Truth is ontologically transcendent from human minds.
C: Therefore, God exists

Now that we’ve looked at the argument and it’s different aspects, I will expound on the problem that I mentioned earlier. The exact issue we have with arguing from truth to God is that though we as theists see the connection between God and truth intuitively, it’s very difficult to demonstrate such a connection. Clark’s argument comes under fire because he explicitly calls God truth, but what does that even mean? In defence of premise one of his argument, all Telemantors can say is “if not God then what other option do we have?” It is because of the difficulty here that I think the best route would be do as Moreland and Reppert have done and argue for God’s existence not on the basis of truth, but rather against naturalism. But there does seem to be connection here — I’m just not sure what the best way to do it would be.

My Argument

Now then, on to my own variation of the argument from intentionality. I will simply modify Reppert’s argument to look more like this:

P1: If a proposition has an objective aboutness or truth value, then there is some aspect of mind which is independent of matter.
P2: At the very least the law of non-contradiction has an objective truth value.  (To deny so would lead to absurdities).
C1: Therefore there is at least some aspect of mind which does not depend on matter to exist.
P3: God is a mental substance which does not depend on matter for his existence.
C2: Therefore it is at least possible that God exists.

Now then there is a lot of room for improvement in this argument but at least I’ve gotten it out of the way so that we can move on to next argument in the series. Thank you for reading please give me you thoughts in the comments.

References:
Kreeft, Peter, and Fr. Ronald R. Tacelli, SJ. Handbook of Christian Apologetics. New York City: Invervarsity, 1994. Print
Clark, G. H. (1989). A Christian View of Men and Things, p. 318-23
Nash, R. H. (1988). Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Nash, R.H. (1999). Lifes Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Reppert, Victor. “The Argument from Truth Gordon Clark Style.” Weblog post. Dangerous Idea. Blogger, 19 Jan. 2101. Web. 17 Mar. 2010. <http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/03/argument-from-truth-gordon-clark-style.html>.
Reppert, Victor. C.S. Lewis’ Dangerous Idea. New York: InterVarsity, 2007. Print
700 Subscribers: Argument from Truth. Perf. Telemantors. Youtube, November 2009. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGyaSVWRySE>

Tags: Argument from truth