Thread by @EveKeneinan

One of the things that is most commonly misunderstood in arguments between theists and atheists is the extent to which they go “all the way down”: the disagreement extends far into the question of what the disagreement IS and MEANS and INVOLVES.

Here’s Alasdair MacIntyre:

One striking instance of not appreciating this is Keith Parsons the noted (former) philosopher of religion’s remark here.

“Both theism and atheism begin with an uncaused brute fact.”

This is wrong. Atheism MUST include brute facts. Theism MUST exclude them. They are OPPOSED.

The atheist cannot conceptualize God as other than a brute fact. That is, the atheist cannot conceptualize God.

The theist cannot conceptualize a brute fact. Neither can the atheist. That is because brute facts are utterly unintelligible. They are repugnant to reason and are direct repudiations of the Principle of Reason.

This is what I mean when I say atheism entails rejecting reason.

To accept an ontology that allows “brute facts” just is to accept an ontology that allows things and events which exist or happen FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

And as I have often noted, this allowance cannot be CABINED, that is, it cannot be LIMITED to the “safe” fringes of being.

Once you allow that things and events can exist or happen FOR NO REASON AT ALL, you cannot ever, not once, rationally offer any reasoned account of anything without adding “unless of course it happened FOR NO REASON AT ALL.”

And you have to MEAN that.

The other day @AStratelates reminded me of this cartoon, which comedically shows the reason-destroying ramifications of this position.