Do Self-Evident Positions Require Argument?
I recently shared the upcoming cover of my book with Sophia on Twitter:
To which somebody responded:
But is this right?
I think the principle of sufficient reason is self-evident. But there are many people that not only reject that the principle of sufficient reason as self-evident; they reject the principle of sufficient reason altogether.
For this reason, it helps to have arguments, which serve a purpose even if *you* take the position as self-evident. Perhaps denial of PSR invites catastrophic skepticism. Perhaps PSR is necessary to secure inference to the best explanation and perhaps PSR can be supported via inference to the best explanation. And so on, and so forth (fwiw, I develop these arguments for PSR in my upcoming book).
Moreover, just saying the “existence of reality” is unhelpful. Virtually nobody denies that (trivially) reality exists; what’s debated is what is really real. So, let’s pull back a bit and consider the reality of the external world. Most of us — myself included — take the reality of the external world to be self-evident. But again, not everybody does. So again, it helps to have arguments, whatever those are.
Finally, let it be said that not everyone takes the existence of God to be self-evident — including many theists. Aquinas said that God’s existence is self-evident only to God. Sure seems right to me. When I was an atheist, God’s existence didn’t seem self-evident then. As a theist, God’s existence doesn’t seem self-evident now (even if belief in God can be justified apart from argument). And so, I venture arguments.