What makes people irrational thinkers?

[GrandizerII]

OK, is Hart's position that physical reality is inherently contingent warranted?

More interestingly, upon what is physical reality contingent?

And is it even logically possible for physical reality to be contingent? Without physical reality we are left with...?

When the theist argues that the universe, or physical reality, must be contingent, they are not necessarily implying that non-existence is possible. They can grant that existence is metaphysically necessary, while also arguing that it need not be in this actual form that it is in.

If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that this reality only comprises one universe (with us in it), then would you agree that there could have instead be a reality in which we didn't exist at all? If so, then it seems to me like this would be a concession that this physical reality is contingent. If not, then you're arguing that it is metaphysically necessary and couldn't have been otherwise (but this would be a really hard argument to make for this scenario, at first glance).

For the atheist, there appear to be primarily two options to go with in response to whether a one-universe reality is contingent or not:

1. Such a reality is necessary because there's no way it could've been otherwise. This seems to suffer from the same problem as when the theist argues that this world is the best of all possible worlds. It's hard to see how it could not have been otherwise.

2. Such a reality is not necessary as is, but it exists as is nevertheless. And there need not be an explanation for that. The universe is a brute fact.

If we start postulating multiple universes per physical reality, it gets intuitively easier to see how reality must therefore be necessary. And it's even easier when we consider all possible universes being actual universes within this reality. So if the first two options listed above aren't appealing to the atheist, this is basically the third option.

About your statement on intuition, I think I have a less cynical view of it. Intuition, when it is coupled with good reasoning and given what we do know and observe, can be a good pointer in the right direction. But yeah, you definitely do not want to rely primarily on intuition for certainty.

And for me, no, my intuition doesn't tell me the earth is flat. I've seen the pictures and videos after all (and the science clearly shows it is not flat). Intuition itself can evolve with new understanding. Intuition also isn't the complete opposite of reasoning; they are often in tandem with one another when it comes to pondering/analyzing reality. Intuition is automatic and doesn't involve much rigor per se, but it doesn't mean reasoning cannot make use of intuition at all.