Testing Truth-Claims for Truth

Are Feelings, Intuitions, Common Sense, and Instinct Reliable Ways to Find Spiritual Truths?

Feelings, Intuitions, and Common Sense

Although we can distinguish between feeling, intuitions, and common sense, they are all similar in their basic presuppositions. In all three cases, truth is apprehended subjectively by one’s personal impressions or opinions. Of course, personal opinions are often in error. One can sincerely believe in something and be sincerely wrong. The problem with these methods of acquiring truth lies in their essential subjectivity. This results in many contradictory proclamations among religions. Let me illustrate.

One may feel that an inspiring thought is a direct revelation from God when the thought may contradict the Bible or a host of other religious books. Some people believe intuitively that the better they are—the more good that they do—the better chance they have of getting into heaven. Yet the Bible teaches that it is not through our goodness that we are saved but through God’s grace (Eph. 2:8-9). Some religious groups feel strongly that abstaining from meat and sexual activity (except for the purpose of having children) is necessary for a disciplined life. Some Christians will agree with this. Yet other Christians feel just as strongly that sexual activity and all foods are God’s gracious gifts. Whose feelings are correct?

Nineteenth century Romantic John Muir once commented that “John the Baptist was not more eager to get all his fellow sinners into the Jordan than I to baptize all of mine in the beauty of God’s mountains.” Apparently, Muir believed that people can feel closer to God in the mountains than in church. Other religions disagree. The Mormons hold their temples so sacred that non-Mormons are not even allowed inside.

In a similar way, feelings and intuition are an essential and fundamental means of verifying truth in New Age thinking. Many New Ager followers claim, for example, that particular spots in Sedona, Arizona, possess powerful mystical energies that are conducive to meditation and to bringing one closer to the god-force (whatever they think that is). At such locales, they claim, one is much more likely to apprehend religious truth than elsewhere. But in reality the only unique thing about these spots is the mindset of the devotees.

The problem is that feelings, intuitions, and common sense are not self-authenticating; that is, because they neither encourage objective verification nor detect false impressions, they can just as easily lead to untruth as to truth. Once again, as with authority (see my previous blog article), there must be some verifiable criteria by which feelings, intuitions, and common sense can be judged for their truth value.

Instinct

Instinct can be thought of as “programmed information.” For instance, babies know instinctively to hold their breath when suddenly submerged in water. People know instinctively to drink when dehydrated rather than to eat. Kids (and tree-climbing animals) seem to naturally know how far up a tree they can jump down without breaking a leg. This kind of survival information, however, is not truth in the sense that we are dealing with here. By programmed information I mean more than this: There are instinctive truths relevant to God and morality that are innate to all people.

The Bible teaches that there are spiritual and moral truths instinctive to the human race, and this is confirmed by secular studies. Like the Bible, anthropology and comparative religious studies teach that we instinctively recognizes the existence of God and certain moral standards of behavior that are mandatory in human relationships. In at least these two ways, absolute truth is revealed in human instinct, that is, programmed into us innately by God (see Romans chapters one and two).

There are problems, however, with accurately applying these instinctive truths. Because of humanity’s fallen state and because people are so easily persuaded by emotions and feelings, we have a proclivity to distort these two instincts and frequently end up worshiping false gods and endorsing immoral acts (Rom. 1:18-32).

Another problem is that instinct is incapable of revealing truth beyond its own limitations. Like information programmed into a computer, human instinct cannot offer truth beyond the purpose of its creation. Thus instinct may inform us that God exists and that He demands specific ethical behavior, but it does not give us information about the essential nature of God or clear information that leads to a saving relationship with God. This kind of information can only come from “special” revelation: objective, propositional statements from God that are recorded in Scripture and made alive in the person of Jesus Christ. ©

One thought on “Testing Truth-Claims for Truth”

  1. As a child, I remember asimusng that all human beings grew up to have something called “common sense.” Then, during adulthood, I came to realize this was a kind of illusion I created in my own mind. Over time, people have made analogies to describe common sense as a perspective on telepathy or collective thought that anyone can develop. It must be a conscious effort and everyone i have met doesn’t share this specific goal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *