From Absurdity to Aquinas: A Philosophical Journey of Belief
If you believe reality is completely intrinsically intelligible1, if you're convinced that things, in principle, can be fully comprehended, and if you hold the view that ultimately everything can turn out for the better, with all forms of evil finding redemption, then classical theism, specifically Christianity (I am a Catholic), seems to be your fitting philosophical home.
Conversely, if you think reality eludes complete understanding, if you admit that there are coherent questions that lack satisfying answers (i.e., “the universe just is, and that’s all there is to it.”), and if you perceive evil as a rampant force devoid of any higher purpose, then aligning yourself with existentialism, specifically of the Sartean variety, seems more appropriate (though this arguably leans closer to nihilism).
My own philosophical journey initially steered me towards atheism, existentialism, and absurdism. Philosophy, in other words, initially caused me to view meaning as a human construct rather than an inherent truth about wider reality , and life itself – the world itself – as devoid of any Grand Narrative, except for what I chose to fabricate and impose. Essentially, I believed that the only discovery was the absence of anything to discover.
However, years later, a blend of philosophical aha-moments and personal experiences, often intertwined with tragedy and pain, nudged me in a different direction. I began to perceive the world, despite its glaring imperfections, as imbued with meaning, as fundamentally intelligible, and inherently good.
Nowadays, while I still identify as an existentialist, I no longer subscribe to absurdism. Contrary to Sartre, I assert that essence (at least logically) precedes existence. Those familiar with my thoughts won't be surprised to learn that I resonate with Thomas Aquinas' perspective on reality: the concept that being itself — the unrestricted, intrinsically intelligible act of understanding, understanding itself — forms the foundation of everything. Everything else, from the humble tadpole to the loftiest angelic intellect, merely participates in existence, dependent on the qualitatively infinite Absolute — God — for its reality.
Accept the complete intelligibility of reality, and I believe I can present compelling arguments for the existence of God. Conversely, I struggle to refute absurdism – the denial of this intelligibility – (yes, I could employ retorsion tactics as in TBAFG, but that's another discussion). Essentially, I ponder how the world must be under the assumption that absurdism is false, hoping that in another life, clarity will replace the current fog of understanding. Part of my hope in heaven — the yearning for the radically different hereafter as described in the tradition of the beatific vision — is not just to find perfect love, but also perfect knowing, where all becomes transparent beyond any shadow of doubt.
That is, intrinsically completely intelligible in itself. This does not mean we are able to answer every question about everything, only that there is an answer to every coherent question that can be asked (maybe only God knows what they are).