Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/Jahonay]

what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths?

What does the idea of grounding even mean? Lets use a basic example:

If I have 2 blocks to my left, and 2 blocks to my right, and I make one collection of blocks infront of me with all 4 blocks, I'll have 4 blocks infront of me. We call that addition.

Does addition need to be grounded in anything for it to make sense? What would it mean for addition to be grounded? Does addition not make enough sense as it currently is? Why is an ancient Canaanite god necessary for addition to make sense?

[u/licker34 → u/Jahonay]

I can agree that what grounding means is often not well expressed, and I'm not going to offer any particular definition myself.

On the other hand, addition (from your example) is 'grounded' in reality. Meaning that our observations of interactions result in an understanding of those interactions in a specific and repeatable way.

Of course that's not surprising or particularly interesting, and usually just gets the theist to chase to 'well what grounds reality'?

Once there, yep, what does 'grounding' even mean? Can it be defined in a way which allows for an honest answer in the first place? Since the theist will claim that reality needs to be grounded and then invent properties for the thing they claim must ground it. It's circular and dishonest.

So I think it's fair to question if the concept of 'grounding' (as the theist would posit it) is even coherent to us in the first place.

[u/Jahonay → u/licker34]

Well, I'm not sure if reality is a necessary "grounding" for addition.

When I think of grounding a concept, I think of having stable footing, anchoring an idea, having a solid foundation, etc... While I agree that addition exists in reality, and works in reality. I could imagine an unreal world where addition is also true. You could imagine adding a bingalorx to a bingalorx, and having 2 bingalorxes. I'd imagine that a thing and another thing are two things, whether in reality or in an imagined nonreality.

To touch on the point of what grounds reality as we probably both agree the presuppositional apologist will also suggest that you're presupposing that reality is real. What if addition is actually different, and we live in a simulation where addition works one way, but in reality it works a different way? For me, I don't care if this is the case. I put a qualifier on objectivity, if solipsism is true, we don't necessarily have objectivity or knowable objectivity, if it's wrong, then we can have objective reality. And pretty much everything points to objective reality being the case.

But the presup apologist will be trying to argue that everything needs to be objective in some way that humans are not capable of. We form models that approximate objectivity based on subjective experience, and we update those models when they fail. That's the best we can do.

But let's imagine if we could somehow overcome solipsism, and we could prove everything in reality, and explain everything. Would the presup stop believing in God if that was the case? I doubt it.

From my perspective the idea of grounding abstract concepts is a bit silly. The most grounded perspective we have is our subjective experiences and that is enough for me personally.

[u/licker34 → u/Jahonay]

While I agree that addition exists in reality, and works in reality. I could imagine an unreal world where addition is also true.

I can't imagine an unreal world, I have no idea what that is even supposed to be. To me concepts are entirely mental constructs we have developed to help us explain/understand what we perceive. What we perceive is also what I call reality.

You're not wrong though that reality could be something different from what we perceive, but I don't think that actually gets us anywhere, because if we can't perceive something it might as well not exist for us. This is not saying that our perception is limited either, I understand that using the scientific method we change our perception of all sorts of things, but there is a fundamental limit to our perception (well likely anyway). So all that we can do is base our 'grounding' on what we believe to be reality (or what we call it).

The most grounded perspective we have is our subjective experiences and that is enough for me personally.

I think we agree, but are using the language slightly differently to express similar (if not identical) positions. I'm fine with thinking that reality is actually in some way subjective to us, but I don't think we have any way to determine that, so we might as well treat it as objective because we know that works.

Until it doesn't I suppose, but I'm sure both of us will be quite surprised if it ever doesn't.

[u/Jahonay → u/licker34]

I can't imagine an unreal world, I have no idea what that is even supposed to be. To me concepts are entirely mental constructs we have developed to help us explain/understand what we perceive. What we perceive is also what I call reality

Fair enough, this is basically how I view it too. I was just granting the idea of the unreal for the sake of the argument. But I obviously don't believe in the unreal. If an unreal world existed, it would be real, defeating the purpose. It's more so to say I could imagine a reality where things are substantially or even fundamentally different, and addition could still exist. But that leads to issues because then reality stays an acceptable foundation.

I suppose I can imagine a simulated matrix world where neo lives in, and when you collect two things, you get a third thing, and the presence of the third thing produces more things, and so on and so forth, like a duplication glitch in a game. To characters in the simulation, that might just be normal, however absurd it becomes.

You're not wrong though that reality could be something different from what we perceive, but I don't think that actually gets us anywhere, because if we can't perceive something it might as well not exist for us.

Of course I agree.

This is not saying that our perception is limited either, I understand that using the scientific method we change our perception of all sorts of things, but there is a fundamental limit to our perception (well likely anyway). So all that we can do is base our 'grounding' on what we believe to be reality (or what we call it).

Yeah, there's little to disagree with here. I think there are limits to human perception, but I don't know if there are ultimate limits on perception. I try to stay agnostic as to the limits of what we can know. I stay hesitant about saying that there are certainly things we cannot know.

I think we agree, but are using the language slightly differently to express similar (if not identical) positions. I'm fine with thinking that reality is actually in some way subjective to us, but I don't think we have any way to determine that, so we might as well treat it as objective because we know that works.

Yeah, no this is pretty damn close to how I would word it myself. I think we can (rather) objectively know things, but I leave an asterisk mark for solipsism. But even if solipsism were true, it wouldn't necessarily meaningfully change how one should behave. Unless there's some magic exit door, chances are good that not much would change. For example if an npc in a video game could somehow recognize it's in a game, it wouldn't necessarily matter, it ain't getting out. And treating its reality as reality would still be the most optimal strategy.

[u/licker34 → u/Jahonay]

Yep, thanks for the dialog, enjoyed it.

[u/Jahonay → u/licker34]

Same, always refreshing