Ignorance of the gaps

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonathan_hili
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
balto said:
It’s interesting that you linked to Feser’s blog, just given his critiques of ID. I’m curious as to what your take would be on his comments on ID in articles such as these: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/id-versus-t-roundup.html
Click to expand...
I do spend a lot of time on the Feser blog and have encountered his critiques of ID in the past. Your link presents quite a reading list and I plan to spend time going through it because I respect Feser’s ability to see what others (including myself) often miss.

I read one article Feser did on Dembski and this paragraph jumped out at me.
Now, having made this distinction, Dembski goes on explicitly to acknowledge that just as “the art of shipbuilding is not in the wood that constitutes the ship” and “the art of making statues is not in the stone out of which statues are made,” “so too, the theory of intelligent design contends that the art of building life is not in the physical stuff that constitutes life but requires a designer” (emphasis added). And there you have it: Living things are for ID theory to be modeled on ships and statues, the products of techne or “art,” whose characteristic “information” is not “internal” to them but must be “imposed” from “outside.” And that just is what A-T philosophers mean by a “mechanistic” conception of life.
Click to expand...
My initial response is that I don’t think the critique is entirely valid because for ID theorists the characteristic genetic information IS “internal” to living things written into the DNA that essentially makes living things what they are. It isn’t an imposed order from “outside” but an aspect of the very essential nature of what it is that makes a living being alive.

I haven’t read the article completely as I did not want to lose this observation, but this appears to answer how Thomism could be reconciled with ID.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The overwhelming odds against Abiogenesis also suggest very strongly that the process was designed to succeed, rather than be the result of fortuitous chance so far as the future of evolution is concerned.

Notice that the evolutionists cannot even escape this language. They speak of “natural selection” as if that was possible. Selection can only done by an intelligent agent that is free to select animate matter rather than inanimate matter as a course of matter’s future development.

When Dawkins speaks of evolution he sees it as the escape hatch from any and all implication of Providence at work. He has said so in exactly those words, claiming that his own atheism is vindicated by the theory of evolution. He has as much as said, “We don’t need any God to explain anything. And evolution is the reason.” But Intelligent Design as a hard nut he is not able to crack. It is Abiogenesis that doesn’t fit with evolution and never will, even though Abiogenesis contained within itself the seed of evolution, among other things…

“Just you wait,” the evolutionist replies. “Science someday will Intelligently Design an experiment to show that random abiogenesis is not only possible but the only possible explanation.”

Well, I guess we all know how that will play out with students of Logic 101.
Click to expand...
👍

“Natural selection” is a euphemism for the biological version of the Nazis’ Final Solution!
It is based on two false assumptions:
  1. Destruction is more fundamental than Creation.
  2. The elimination of God leads to the Ultimate Explanation. 😉
 
tonyrey said:
👍

“Natural selection” is a euphemism for the biological version of the Nazis’ Final Solution!
It is based on two false assumptions:
  1. Destruction is more fundamental than Creation.
  2. The elimination of God leads to the Ultimate Explanation. 😉
Click to expand...
Scientism is not even scientific! :rolleyes: It is religion. :rolleyes:
 
Peter_Plato said:
I do spend a lot of time on the Feser blog and have encountered his critiques of ID in the past. Your link presents quite a reading list and I plan to spend time going through it because I respect Feser’s ability to see what others (including myself) often miss.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read them all yet either, though I intend to do it soon.
Peter_Plato said:
I read one article Feser did on Dembski and this paragraph jumped out at me.

My initial response is that I don’t think the critique is entirely valid because for ID theorists the characteristic genetic information IS “internal” to living things written into the DNA that essentially makes living things what they are. It isn’t an imposed order from “outside” but an aspect of the very essential nature of what it is that makes a living being alive.

I haven’t read the article completely as I did not want to lose this observation, but this appears to answer how Thomism could be reconciled with ID.
Click to expand...
I read this one too and it seems like if Feser is correct then Dembski was being a little confusing in his language. Maybe the only problem is that they are not speaking the same language? 🤷
 
tonyrey said:
To sustain implies continuous creation because without God nothing would exist nor continue to exist.
Click to expand...
Right, which is exactly what Thomism teaches.
tonyrey said:
It does not explain how or why miracles occur or any other form of divine intervention which suspends the laws of nature.
Click to expand...
There’s no need to suspend the laws of nature because the laws of nature are not absolute. Only God is absolute. Not everything follows the so-called “laws of nature”.
tonyrey said:
God does not will every drop of rain, as Calvin believed, nor is He directly responsible for every event. To a certain extent the universe is independent and out of control because God foresees and permits accidents and disasters but He does not command them to occur.
Click to expand...
Yes, God does not directly cause every event. It’s not raindrop → God, but raindrop → weather patterns → physical laws → … → God. If something doesn’t find its ultimate source in God then it does not exist. Yes, God is not responsible for the actions of free agents, but God is responsible for granting them free will. The universe is also not “out of control” as far as God is concerned because creation is good. We’re only looking at very small isolated pieces of the universe which is why we’d think it is out of control. God is not God if He cannot control the universe.
 
CatholicSoxFan said:
Don’t get caught saying that it’s a religion to atheists; it’s not. It’s a philosophy (and thus refutes itself), but it’s not a religion.
Click to expand...
Atheism is also religion. It’s the worship of Nogod.

Anything that is worshipped as the Ultimate without demonstrable proof is religion.

People also make a religion of money, power, fame, etc. if they worship them as the Ultimate.
 
jonathan_hili said:
Hi all.

Was just watching the Brisbane dialogue between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig and something struck me, which has often struck me before. Oftentimes, one hears atheistic debaters condemn (and rightly so, in my opinion) the “God of the gaps” approach to Christian philosophy, theology and apologetics: “God” should not be used as a catch-all theory to explain something we don’t know in science, for example, how human life began or why planets and stars move in the way they do.

However, I’ve found that the knife cuts both ways: Professor Krauss and many other atheistic thinkers often appeal to “ignorance of the gaps” to rebut cosmological or other arguments in favour of God’s existence. For instance, in response to Dr Craig’s arguments for the beginning of the universe or else for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, Dr Krauss responds on both occasions with essentially the same argument: Well, we don’t know. Yes, such arguments carry most of the evidence, however, anything is possible so we can conclude that these arguments are even probable or right. To me, this “ignorance of the gaps” is just as bad.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
"What is God-Of-The-Gaps?

This frequent objection should be addressed first, as in most debate situations atheists resort to this contention abruptly and repeatedly. God-Of-The-Gaps is an assertion originally espoused by Presbyterian minister Henry Drummand in the year 1846, essentially theorizing that creation cannot be utilized to authenticate the existence of a Creator (1). An apparent Biblically erroneous statement, as Scripture conversely affirms that God’s existence is “clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20). For enigmatic reasons, nearly all atheists deem this declaration to be considered an axiom for all Christians. Ostensibly presuming acceptance on the part of their Christian contenders, banking on the notion that it was invented by a Christian; that all Christian debaters would reluctantly acquiesce.

If this statement was Biblically sound, it would present a very significant obstacle. Consider a nonbeliever referring to an oil painting of a landscape, then contending that it came into being by random chance and no artist was involved in the process. When you begin to reply referring to the deliberate, intentional, thoughtful brush strokes, our atheist friend suddenly interrupts contending that you cannot refer to the actual painting in any way to support your reasoning. This virtually eliminates nearly every argument proposable. It’s analogous to a boxing opponent insisting you enter the ring blindfolded with your hands tied behind your back.

It’s a foregone conclusion that when an atheist claims that a Creator doesn’t exist, and you refer to some aspect of creation in effort to prove otherwise, our atheist friend will most likely raise his hand like a traffic cop signaling a motorist to stop and start parroting “God of the gaps, God of the gaps, God of the gaps….” Simply inform your challenger that you are not a Presbyterian and the statement is erroneous to Catholics. A statement made in 1846 by some Presbyterian minister (who disputed the earth being a sphere) is irrelevant to contemporary science" (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Arguments.htm)
 
“Johnson even went so far as to say that the Pope had only himself to blame when the media implied that the Roman Catholic Church had capitulated to science”.

Actually, the Holy Roman Catholic Church considers science a tool that helps us learn more about our Creator.
 
Oreoracle said:
Back to the OP: I simply disagree with your premise. The idea isn’t that science will eventually answer all questions about the universe; rather, it is that if we ever answer a given question about the universe, it will be through science.

I think this belief is justified. No other method of discovery has explained and predicted phenomena to the extent that science has.
Click to expand...
I agree with this to the extent it is locked in the box of humanism (in light of the simple definition: the denial of any power or moral value superior to that of humanity).

Problem is that if there is a God, there is guaranteed to be a method of discovery much more successful than humans figuring something out.

That being God revealing whatever it is he desires to humans (creation).

Obviously, that would be the strongest form of discovery.
 
EasterBeagle said:
“Johnson even went so far as to say that the Pope had only himself to blame when the media implied that the Roman Catholic Church had capitulated to science”.

Actually, the Holy Roman Catholic Church considers science a tool that helps us learn more about our Creator.
Click to expand...
I like the words that follow the quoted sentence:
"Now [Johnson] seems more inclined to let the Pope’s text speak for itself; and in letting go of his annoyance at the Pope, Johnson makes clear that the Holy Father is merely applying Newman’s generic insight to the specific question of evolution. For in Johnson’s phrasing, the Pope “drew a line between 1) legitimate scientific theories based upon empirical evidence, which the Church will honor, and 2) overly ambitious manifestations of materialist philosophy, which contradict truths which are fundamental to the Church’s magisterium.”

I also like the concluding thought of the review of Johnson’s book:
"One concludes this book not only grateful for the Pope’s letter on evolution, where all of Johnson’s mistakes are assiduously avoided, but also in admiration for the Holy Father’s lavish praise of Cardinal Newman in his more recent encyclical Fides et Ratio . For in the fewest possible sentences Newman has summarized every logical flaw in this book: “Half the world knows nothing of the argument from design”and when you have got it, you do not prove by it the moral attributes of God”except very faintly. Design teaches me power, skill, and goodness [meaning here, cleverness in craftsmanship], not sanctity, not mercy, not a future judgment, which three are of the essence of religion . . . . I believe in design because I believe in God, not in a God because I see design.”
 
cfauster said:
I believe in design because I believe in God, not in a God because I see design.”
Click to expand...
But according to Scripture, design can be used as a tool to lead someone to belief, as God’s existence is “clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20). As the analysis of an oil painting of a landscape can be utilized to prove it was created by an artist.
 
EasterBeagle said:
But according to Scripture, design can be used as a tool to lead someone to belief, as God’s existence is “clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20). As the analysis of an oil painting of a landscape can be utilized to prove it was created by an artist.
Click to expand...
As long as the distinction between divine creation of something (its “being”) and the operation of something (natural causes and processes, including evolution) is observed, I agree.

I like the following insight:
“God’s Creation of the world from nothing is not the same as a natural cause. Unlike the causes at work within nature, God’s act of Creation is a completely non-temporal and non-progressive reality. God does not intervene into nature nor does he adjust or “fix up” natural things. God is the divine reality without which no other reality could exist. Thus, the evidence of nature’s ultimate dependency on God as Creator cannot be the absence of a natural causal explanation for some particular natural structure. Our current science may or may not be able to explain any given feature of living organisms, yet there must exist some explanatory cause in nature. The most complex of organisms have a natural explanation, even if it is one that we do not now, or perhaps never will, know.”

This comes from Michael Tkacz’s article:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design
 
cfauster said:
As long as the distinction between divine creation of something (its “being”) and the operation of something (natural causes and processes, including evolution) is observed, I agree.
Click to expand...
I think God was directly involved at every aspect of creation. For example; the earth effectively accumulated the fundamental essentials required for advanced technological civilization, such as coal, crude oil, natural gas, organic compounds about the same time humans appear. Petroleum and natural gas formed from the anaerobic decomposition of phytoplankton and zooplankton remains that settled at the bottom of proterozoic oceans. These tiny creatures first became abundant just prior to the Paleozoic era about 650 million years ago. Correspondingly, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists estimated that this complex process requires about the same figure; 650 million years of anaerobic decomposition to result in practical fossil fuels. If these scientific estimates are accurate, the first homo sapiens opportunely appeared shortly after the formation of these fossil fuels, indispensable for large scale industrialization. Other resources necessary for advanced civilization such as coal and methane were formed from terrestrial plants dating to the carboniferous era, about 360 million years ago. Coincidently, the first land plants appeared in abundance approximately 380 million years ago, making coal and methane available just prior to homo sapiens as well. These strategic timelines reveal a logically intended sequence of events.
 
The explanatory gaps left by miracles (including the Resurrection) are not like what Newman and Tkacz (and this blog thread) are commenting about.
 
cfauster said:
The explanatory gaps left by miracles (including the Resurrection) are not like what Newman and Tkacz (and this blog thread) are commenting about.
Click to expand...
Unless you consider the creation of the Universe a Miracle.
 
I agree with you, and I think Tkacz and most other Catholic scholars as well as clerical authorities in the Church would likewise agree, that the creation of the universe itself is different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top