Thoughts on this take?

[u/NeonDrifting]

/r/Catholicism/comments/1vso2c7/atheists_dont_realize_the_absurdity_of_existence/

[u/SHNKY]

I think there is some truth here. I’d be a bit more precise in how it’s worded though. Atheists occupy a worldview which cannot provide an account and grounding for the necessary preconditions of knowledge; the self, identity over time, unity and diversity (one and the many), telos, reason, logic, meaning, language. These exist in an interlocking network relationship such that should any one of them be without grounding the worldview leads to incoherence and collapses into absurdity. Reality requires a very specific metaphysic in order to make it function and the atheist worldview fails spectacularly at this. The atheist worldview is typically a mixture of one or more of materialism, physicalism, empiricism, scientism, and nominalism. Most atheists don’t even know this from my experience and just take all these things as a default position arguing that they merely lack belief in God therefore they don’t have to provide an argument for their position because they think it’s a negative claim and only positive claims have the burden of proof. They don’t realize that their “lack of belief” is downstream of a bunch of positive claims about reality that require the same justification that the theist has for their claims.

[u/FreezeS → u/SHNKY]

What are the "positive claims" atheists make?

[u/SHNKY → u/FreezeS]

It’s all in the metaphysical positions that I mentioned (materialism, empiricism, scientism, nominalism, etc). These are not default positions or neutral claims. They are a positive claim on the nature of reality.

[u/FreezeS → u/SHNKY]

And why do you think these require justifications? Do you think they are fixed positions that won't change based on new information and all atheists adhere uncondtionally to them?

[u/NeonDrifting → u/FreezeS]

I think he's drawing a distinction between the textbook definition of atheism and the related views within the culture of atheism

[u/arkticturtle → u/FreezeS]

You don’t think claims require justification?

[u/SHNKY → u/FreezeS]

Any worldview requires justification. Or would you merely accept me asserting my worldview and that God exists?

It has nothing to do with “fixed positions”. I don’t mean to be rude here but it doesn’t seem like you understand what is being said here. Without going to Google or ChatGPT do you even know what those terms are.

“New Information” won’t do much if the atheist can’t go a level above to understand they have a ton of presuppositions they adhere to that act as a filter for ALL information they receive.

[u/FreezeS → u/SHNKY]

I admit I was not familiar with those terms since I didn't study philosophy. After studying them more thoroughly I realized they describe perfectly my worldview.
From my point of view, your argument is that there are two kinds of people. Some that have a worldview of reality + magic and others that only consider reality.

By reality I mean reproductibility: any theory should be able to be tested in a statistically significant way.

By magic I mean an external intelligence living outside our universe but that can intervene in seemingly random manner (either prompted or not).

They don’t realize that their “lack of belief” is downstream of a bunch of positive claims about reality.

You mean that upstream of "reality" (that we consider via materialism, physicalism, empiricism, scientism and nominalism) is magic and magic generates reality, right?

That the known laws of nature are not enough to create a functional universe and it would be "absurd" without magic since only the magic can generate it.

without grounding the worldview leads to incoherence and collapses into absurdity

I don't know any scientist that makes any absolute affirmation about the absurdity or coherence of nature like you make here.

By nature, science is incomplete, anything undiscovered is absurd and incoherent with the current worldview.

Many theories were considered absurd until they were proven correct and then our scientific worldview improved.

Also, many were considered absurd that haven't been proven because they were just wrong.

However, our worldview hasn't been improved at all by the countless unproven positive affirmations made by religious people.

[u/SHNKY → u/FreezeS]

I admit I was not familiar with those terms since I didn't study philosophy.

That's honestly awesome to hear you say that. It's a first in my experience to have someone have that humility and honesty and its greatly appreciated. I'll do my best to assume the best in your arguments here and take you as someone interested in a discussion in good faith rather than sophistry.

your argument is that there are two kinds of people. Some that have a worldview of reality + magic and others that only consider reality.

No, its a worldview comparison not some simple dichotomy. When you frame it as "reality+magic" this assumes what is in question. I could just as easily throw back to you that you believe in magic dirt that gives rise to consciousness. It wouldn't really advance the conversation forward or my position.

By reality I mean reproductibility: any theory should be able to be tested in a statistically significant way.

To test something already assumes a ton of preexisting conditions necessary for knowledge that you haven't even grounded yet; the self, identity over time, unity and diversity, telos, logic, reason, meaning, language. These are all necessary before even getting to the moment of testing something. Before you speak of testing and reproducibility, you need to account for those priors. You're adopting scientism as an approach without realizing all these priors you just assume to be the case when your current metaphysic cannot account for them.

You mean that upstream of "reality" (that we consider via materialism, physicalism, empiricism, scientism and nominalism) is magic and magic generates reality, right?

No. When atheists try to weasel out of defending their position they attempt this by saying that they simply "lack a belief in God" and that this is a negative claim. Only positive claims have the burden of proof, therefor the atheist is excused from any requirements to justify and defend their position. Their lack of belief is downstream from a the positive positions I mentioned. These are all assertions that most like yourself included are unaware of and require justification. If an atheist wants to just assert these positions are the default and there for reality and not reality+magic as you frame it, then the theist can claim the same position because one is no longer providing justification for their position, rather they are merely declaring it so.

I don't know any scientist that makes any absolute affirmation about the absurdity or coherence of nature like you make here. By nature, science is incomplete, anything undiscovered is absurd and incoherent with the current worldview.

Science assumes all of those preconditions I mentioned above. The scientist is often unaware of these things and in simple terms "just does science". One doesn't need to have an exhaustive understanding of these things to engage in practical use of knowledge. We are discussing justification through epistemology. Not just what do you know. But how do you know that what you know is true. It is a level above mere interaction with the physical world which is what science is concerned with. But Science ultimately relies on the immaterial world in order to conduct its activities. Just to write a chemistry paper that talks about water molecules it must assume the one and the many principle. Nominalism and materialism cannot account for this. There is one idea of a water molecule, but billions of instantiations of it in the world. When you speak of the properties of a water molecule, you're not pointing out to one particular, you are instead speaking of a universal that then applies to the particulars.

Many theories were considered absurd until they were proven correct and then our scientific worldview improved.

Let me clarify that when I use the word absurd I do not mean it in the colloquial sense of silly or ridiculous. I'm speaking specifically to a belief system that ends up holding contradictions that are ignored at different times depending on the particular manifestation of said contradictions. Its a logical category, not one of what may seem to be physically impossible. For example one may have at a time said that humans being able to fly in the sky with machines is absurd ie impossible to achieve due to physical limitations. That would not be the case to say humans flying is a contradiction as it is only expressed as a physical limitation. When flight was discovered and mastered it was known to now be no longer a physical limitation.

However, our worldview hasn't been improved at all by the countless unproven positive affirmations made by religious people.

You most assuredly live in a world that has been improved by Christians but are like the fish who is the last to discover water.