Dr. Hobart Mowrer / the philosophy of atheism

[quatona]

Ok.

This is what I thought. A statetment about reality which says that gods don't exist.

Correct.

In other words you do not believe in God and this is your view of reality.

Incorrect.

This is your view of the world in which we live.

Incorrect.

This is your worldview that says God does not exist.

Incorrect.

This is what I have been saying but I am consistently over and over again told that this is incorrect!

And rightly so.

It seems to me that you are attempting to be exempt from being labeled.

Incorrect.

Why would you not want to be labeled as having a worldview?

I do have a worldview. This worldview is not "atheism", though, as little as my worldview is "atoothfairianism".

 

[Elioenai26]

Correct.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.


And rightly so.


Incorrect.

I do have a worldview. This worldview is not "atheism", though, as little as my worldview is "atoothfairianism".

Explain it sir, explain how I am incorrect in saying that atheists do not believe in God.

 

[Gadarene]

Ok.

This is what I thought. A statetment about reality which says that gods don't exist. In other words you do not believe in God and this is your view of reality. This is your view of the world in which we live. This is your worldview that says God does not exist.

This is what I have been saying but I am consistently over and over again told that this is incorrect!

It seems to me that you are attempting to be exempt from being labeled. Why would you not want to be labeled as having a worldview?

That's not what this is about and you know it. I'm not trying to prevent you from saying I have a worldview, I'm trying to prevent you from saying that my worldview is based on what it isn't.

Because I don't frame my view of the world around a lack of gods. That still implies that I'm giving it the same level of prominence in my thinking as someone who has a worldview around gods existing. It doesn't imply anything other than "no gods". For a god believer, "gods exist" is everything. For a non-believer "there are no gods" is nothing. As someone (Eudaimonist? quatona?) said earlier, "atheist" describes us in terms of what we aren't, not what we are.

There may be a requirement for beliefs in certain gods to imply that it informs your views on the world, the universe and everything, but rejecting that means you are no longer beholden to that. And again, why would we, atheists, respond to what you, a theist, claim a god necessitates? You think that our lives are meaningless, but you're using your concept of meaning, not ours.

Or to give you another example - as you claim in the OP, Mowrer killed himself according to you because he couldn't handle the implications of there being no God. But I wonder how many theistic claims he swallowed in that. If someone thinks that gods are the only source of objective moral values, or that a lack of objective moral values is somehow so awful you should kill yourself, then I would argue they are still hanging on to far more theistic claims than is necessary, because it is perfectly possible to call such ideas into question as an atheist, and indeed to offer viable alternatives. What needs countering is not just theism (as it is baseless) but also the ideas that it has allowed to permeate into society that are not necessarily true or good.

 

[Elioenai26]

As someone (Eudaimonist? quatona?) said earlier, "atheist" does describe ourselves in terms of what we aren't, not what we are.

So the explanation and description of yourselves in terms of what you are not is acceptable, but the explanation of the Cause of the universe is not acceptable in terms of what it is not?

Why the disparity. Why the double-standard?

I believe the whole matter can be settled with this one simple question and this question is for all of you:

Do you believe that God exists?

If you answer no, then you do not believe He exists. This is inescapable.

Mind you, I am not concerned with whatever reason you may give for disbelief, that is not the point here. The point is this: You either believe God exists, or you do not.

I guess the term i should use would simply be "unbeliever, or godless", which is fine by me. Any objections?

 

[Elioenai26]

Or to give you another example - as you claim in the OP, Mowrer killed himself according to you because he couldn't handle the implications of there being no God. But I wonder how many theistic claims he swallowed in that. If someone thinks that gods are the only source of objective moral values, or that a lack of objective moral values is somehow so awful you should kill yourself, then I would argue they are still hanging on to far more theistic claims than is necessary, because it is perfectly possible to call such ideas into question as an atheist, and indeed to offer viable alternatives. What needs countering is not just theism (as it is baseless) but also the ideas that it has allowed to permeate into society that are not necessarily true or good.

Wrong, that is not what I said. Read it more closely, quote it if necessary, but that its not what I said.

 

[quatona]

Explain it sir, explain how I am incorrect in saying that atheists do not believe in God.

Note how I answered "correct" to this part.

 

[Gadarene]

So the explanation and description of yourselves in terms of what you are not is acceptable, but the explanation of the Cause of the universe is not acceptable in terms of what it is not?

Why the disparity. Why the double-standard?

I would argue that this is the perfect example, and is quite consistent. Saying what something isn't doesn't allow you to make an inference about what it IS - and that goes for posited deities and atheists! You can't conclude that God's a first cause based on rattling off a list of "well he's not this" nor can you conclude what is or isn't an atheistic belief/philosophy/worldview from the simple statement that it's a lack of belief in gods.

Incidentally, you're overreaching here - I reject definitive claims of both naturalistic and supernatural posited first causes as there is currently no evidence for either, only speculation (although hardly equivalent as methodological naturalism has consistently turned out a better track record of understanding reality than theism). The problem with the theistic cosmological argument for me - aside from a few quibbles with its premises - is that even if sound, it's inconclusive on the matter of whether a god was the first cause or not. If you're going to accuse me of a double standard, you may want to check your facts first.

I believe the whole matter can be settled with this one simple question and this question is for all of you:

Do you believe that God exists?

If you answer no, then you do not believe He exists. This is inescapable.

Mind you, I am not concerned with whatever reason you may give for disbelief, that is not the point here. The point is this: You either believe God exists, or you do not.

I guess the term i should use would simply be "unbeliever, or godless", which is fine by me. Any objections?

This really isn't difficult. You can call me an atheist on this matter - but drop this notion of it being a worldview.

 

[Gadarene]

Wrong, that is not what I said. Read it more closely, quote it if necessary, but that its not what I said.

It has everything to do with atheism because Dr. Mowrer understood what the logical ramifications of a godless worldview entailed.

In fact, it was unsuccessful attempts at dealing with depression which were fostered by his own view that to endure and overcome such depression would ultimately be an exercise in futility that was no doubt a factor in him committing suicide.

I'm not really here to split hairs, though - it doesn't alter my point. He was clearly affected by an idea about meaning that is the preserve of theists.

 

[Elioenai26]

I would argue that this is the perfect example, and is quite consistent. Saying what something isn't doesn't allow you to make an inference about what it IS - and that goes for posited deities and atheists! You can't conclude that God's a first cause based on rattling off a list of "well he's not this" nor can you conclude what is or isn't an atheistic belief/philosophy/worldview from the simple statement that it's a lack of belief in gods.

Incidentally, you're overreaching here - I reject definitive claims of both naturalistic and supernatural posited first causes as there is currently no evidence for either, only speculation (although hardly equivalent as methodological naturalism has consistently turned out a better track record of understanding reality than theism). The problem with the theistic cosmological argument for me - aside from a few quibbles with its premises - is that even if sound, it's inconclusive on the matter of whether a god was the first cause or not. If you're going to accuse me of a double standard, you may want to check your facts first.



This really isn't difficult. You can call me an atheist on this matter - but drop this notion of it being a worldview.

It cannot be dropped because you live in the world and your view of the world is at the very least colored by your atheistic presuppositions.

 

[Gadarene]

It cannot be dropped because you live in the world and your view of the world is at the very least colored by your atheistic presuppositions.

And what do you think those atheistic presuppositions are, and how are they necessarily atheistic?

Because from where I've sitting, all you've been doing here is applying the negation of your own theistic premises to us. Which, as I've been taking pains to point out, has buggerall to do with what we actually think.

 

[Elioenai26]

Incidentally, you're overreaching here - I reject definitive claims of both naturalistic and supernatural posited first causes as there is currently no evidence for either, only speculation (although hardly equivalent as methodological naturalism has consistently turned out a better track record of understanding reality than theism). The problem with the theistic cosmological argument for me - aside from a few quibbles with its premises - is that even if sound, it's inconclusive on the matter of whether a god was the first cause or not. If you're going to accuse me of a double standard, you may want to check your facts first.

So you reject a supernatural explanation for the origin of the cosmos as the best explanation for the data because there is no explanation for the supernatural Cause?

Is this your position?

 

[Elioenai26]

And what do you think those atheistic presuppositions are, and how are they necessarily atheistic?

Because from where I've sitting, all you've been doing here is applying the negation of your own theistic premises to us. Which, as I've been taking pains to point out, has buggerall to do with what we actually think.

Your view on explanation for the origin of the universe for starters. Is it supernatural or natural?

 

[Gadarene]

So you reject a supernatural explanation for the origin of the cosmos as the best explanation for the data because there is no explanation for the supernatural Cause?

Is this your position?

I reject both natural and supernatural explanations for the same reason - it could be either (though hardly equiprobable seeing as shoving god in a gap has worked a grand total of NEVER times in the past), and until evidence comes in I'm quite content with a "don't know".

There are other problems with KCA besides this, but this stance is based on the assumption that the KCA checks out.

 

[Gadarene]

Your view on explanation for the origin of the universe for starters. Is it supernatural or natural?

I have no idea which it is. Why do you presuppose that I presupposed on that?

I know which I think is more likely, sure - and I'm sure you can guess which one - but I'm not claiming that it's definitely that one, unlike some people I could care to mention

 

[Elioenai26]

I reject both natural and supernatural explanations for the same reason - it could be either (though hardly equiprobable seeing as shoving god in a gap has worked a grand total of NEVER times in the past), and until evidence comes in I'm quite content with a "don't know".

There are other problems with KCA besides this, but this stance is based on the assumption that the KCA checks out.

I have no idea which it is. Why do you presuppose that I presupposed on that?

I know which I think is more likely, sure - and I'm sure you can guess which one - but I'm not claiming that it's definitely that one, unlike some people I could care to mention

Richard Dawkins used the same idea, that is: that the best inferential explanation for a set of data needs an explanation in order for it to be recognized as a valid explanation. You and Dawkins both maintain that God is not a good explanation for the origin of the universe because you still have to have an explanation for God.

Dr. William Lane Craig simply and effectively shows why this principle is inept and fallacious at best.

Philosopher's of science recognize that in order to recognize an explanation (x) as the best explanation for a given set of data, you don't have to have an explanation for the explanation (x)!

This should seem evident but evidently it isnt.

In fact, if scientists did adopt this principle of explaining explanations, then this would lead to the infinite regress of explanations you mention, which would completely render any scientific endeavor futile!

So thankfully, we do not have to have an explanation of the explanation that we know best makes sense of the available data.

Dr. William Lane Craig refutes Richard Dawkin's pseudo-logic - YouTube

Dr. William Lane Craig Responds to Dawkins Book- YouTube

Enjoy!

 

[SithDoughnut]

So you reject a supernatural explanation for the origin of the cosmos as the best explanation for the data because there is no explanation for the supernatural Cause?

What makes you think that God is supernatural? You could claim that he is not bound by the laws of nature, but do you actually know what all the laws of nature are?

As for your OP, that's nihilism, not atheism. Once again you try to make us all fit into the boxes you want us to. Perhaps we should start calling all Christians anti-semites, because some of them are?

 

[Gadarene]

Richard Dawkins used the same idea, that is: that the best inferential explanation for a set of data needs an explanation in order for it to be recognized as a valid explanation. You and Dawkins both maintain that God is not a good explanation for the origin of the universe because you still have to have an explanation for God.

I don't recall saying that, can you point out where I did?

All I said is that the KCA is unsound, and even assuming it is sound, it is inconclusive.

I have not said that a supernatural explanation is a bad explanation anywhere - only that whatever else is wrong with the argument, assuming it's true the argument doesn't permit a conclusive answer to what the first cause was.

And I've already said why naturalism trumps supernaturalism - and it's not because supernaturalism necessitates an explanation of its own - it's because naturalism has a track record of working, and supernaturalism has a track record of retreating.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't recall saying that, can you point out where I did?

All I said is that the KCA is unsound, and even assuming it is sound, it is inconclusive.

I have not said that a supernatural explanation is a bad explanation anywhere - only that whatever else is wrong with the argument, assuming it's true the argument doesn't permit a conclusive answer to what the first cause was.

And I've already said why naturalism trumps supernaturalism - and it's not because supernaturalism necessitates an explanation of its own - it's because naturalism has a track record of working, and supernaturalism has a track record of retreating.

Care to provide any empirical evidence for this assertion?

 

[Elioenai26]

What makes you think that God is supernatural? You could claim that he is not bound by the laws of nature, but do you actually know what all the laws of nature are?

As for your OP, that's nihilism, not atheism. Once again you try to make us all fit into the boxes you want us to. Perhaps we should start calling all Christians anti-semites, because some of them are?

It matters not one bit what you call me. Call me what you like, but atheists who propagate a godless reality are going to be called to task on those things which their godless reality justifies.

Likewise, those who are religious are going to be called to task on those things which their religion justifies.

No one is immune from scrutiny. No one.

 

[Gadarene]

Care to provide any empirical evidence for this assertion?

It would be far quicker to list the instances where god of the gaps has worked in the past. I'll start.

Finished!

Maybe now you can point out where exactly I claimed god was a bad explanation?

Maybe after that, you can provide an example of my alleged atheistic presuppositions?