We've talked about the fact that an intuitionless epistemology is literally a set of blind faith beliefs. The usual reply is that I can't prove my intuitions are true, therefore what difference does it make that I believe my intuitions are true? Here's one difference:

 

For the a-teleologist (one who doesn't believe teleology is true intuitively), all his/her belief is KNOWABLY blind, per that epistemological approach. The teleologist has no way to KNOW all of her/his belief is blind. And therefore the teleologist can conceptually distinguish (even if illusorily) between blind and non-blind faith.

 

And this distinction in conceptual capacity will cause language to be confusedly equivocal over and over in a discussion between a teleologist and an a-teleologist. The teleologist will tend to take indicative statements to imply not only belief, but presumably non-blind belief. The a-teleologist will imply no such thing by such language. And so on. The fact is, most people seem to be teleologists just like Rom. 1 seems to be saying. And, if they actually are, CONVENTIONAL language is teleological in nature. If there is no majority epistemology, there may not be such a thing as conventional language.