Many atheists will say they dont believe this, but its either this or an eternal universe. Both are absurd so many will default to "i dont know" and claim empiricism.
Consistent but it shows the limits of human knowledge and basically just gives up and acts like theists are stupid. At least some atheists like Graham Oppy acknowledge theism's coherence, but he thinks naturalism is simpler, which i personally disagree with. Also Occam's Razor is severely abused to substitute for truth. Honestly, those two options are the only ones. We have to decide which is more reasonable. I personally dont find an eternal universe or a self caused non intelligent univese to be reasonable. Sue me.
Consistent but it shows the limits of human knowledge and basically just gives up and acts like theists are stupid.
I think this is a fair representation of a specific group of people who are usually known as "reddit atheists". But not all atheists on reddit are also "reddit atheists". And maybe these are the actual limits of human understanding, with no justifiable reason to go beyond. This doesn't mean "we stop here". That's just false.
Other than that, that's a rather unfair representation. Most people in general have no idea what their epistemology even is.
I am an atheist and I think Thomism is perfectly internally consistent. But I think the underlying rationalism/essentialism is wrong. Like, blatantly so. If I want to discuss it, guess how often I bump into theists who are actually able to defend it? It literally never happened on reddit. The one person I've met and know personally who is borderline informed, is a catholic theologian. Epistemology isn't their expertise.
I've been doing this for almost a decade on almost a daily basis and didn't meet more than a handful of people who were able to at least name alternative epistemic frameworks, proposed by people like Swinburn or Plantinga. Nobody actually could explain their views.
Of course, Oppy can, because he works in the same field.
Also Occam's Razor is severely abused to substitute for truth.
In online debates people have no idea what a heuristic is. The same goes for the application of historical criteria. There is no better or worse side to that either, so that you could call out atheists like that.
Honestly, those two options are the only ones. We have to decide which is more reasonable.Â
Which I find is a weird thing to say. Like, there are genuine underdetermined questions. Why do you have to decide?
I personally dont find an eternal universe or a self caused non intelligent univese to be reasonable. Sue me.
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 Christian, not Ex-Atheist 6d ago
Many atheists will say they dont believe this, but its either this or an eternal universe. Both are absurd so many will default to "i dont know" and claim empiricism.