Ignorance of the gaps

[wanstronian]

Well, I’m wondering how you would respond to the following question that Chesterton once asked.

“Can you jump down your own throat?”

You see, there are some things that dogmatically seem impossible. That doesn’t mean one has a closed mind. What it means is that you simply accept the limitations of science and the limits of the possible.

This is just a red herring. At best, it’s just a preposterous analogy!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why don’t YOU admit that an infinite god should be easy to spot, that it would leave plenty of evidence lying around?

It can’t be helped if you are blind to the evidence. If by evidence you demand that you be able to touch God’s hands and see his face, you are certainly barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is just a red herring. At best, it’s just a preposterous analogy!

No it isn’t. some things we imagine cannot be done. You imagine that a multiverse might exist. I demand that you offer the proof. You offer nothing but the hope that some day science will prove it. Preposterous! All logic is against our finding other universes, never mind an infinity of them that would be required to avoid theism of any kind. We can’t even get out of our own solar system never mind explore parallel universes and an infinity of them to prove they exist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t for one minute think that the existence of a multiverse is the only alternative to a creator god.

Your agnosticism is touching. What, then, is another alternative for which you also have no proof?

It seems you are willing to believe in any alternatives except God. Rather dogmatic, heh?

 

[yppop]

I disagree - every item in your list implies an active rejection. Science doesn’t reject them, it just has no need of them. They can’t be tested, they’re not required, so they’re ignored. This is not a “philosophical” principle, it’s a practical approach to reliable modelling.

Your fourth item again presuppose the existence of something that cannot be demonstrated to exist - there is no evidence of an “underlying cause,” and so it is disregarded. This is most definitely the remit of philosophy - to assume something like an underlying cause and then fabricate some rationale. But science does not actively reject “underlying cause” - it just ignores it because it doesn’t add any value. Again, this is not a “philosophical principle,” other than in that it ignores “philosophical principles.”

Science “rejects” these principles the way that I “reject” the amount of rainfall in Japan when I mow the lawn here in the UK.

You must be a wonderful dancer Wanstro, you sure can do a quick sidestep. You seem to claim that science doesn’t reject purpose, an underlying essence, the absence of verification by the senses, and underlying causes, it ignores them. Wo! that is a fine distinction between what is meant by “ignore” not have the same meaning as “reject”. Wait a minute, going over some of your responses, gives me a clue. How about this: reject implies a plausible, logical, or some other reason for not accepting something and “ignore” implies to dismiss something with a hand wave. For example, your response to in post #120 "This is just a red herring. At best, it’s just a preposterous analogy! “ignores” CharlemagneIII’s obvious argument that things can be dogmatic without being close minded.

IMO, those that “ignore” instead of “reject” that are close minded.

As for me, I prefer to discuss issues rather than engage in arguments as I am doing now. So I will give you the last word unless your response is done with a closed mind.

Yppop

 

[tonyrey]

Is there evidence that our minds, beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, preferences, choices and decisions consist solely of atomic activity?

The materialist’s dogma that there is a lack of evidence for non-physical phenomena ignores the subjectivity of all knowledge.

To evade the fact that science is incapable of explaining itself simply weakens the case for materialism.

Perhaps, but given that the case for materialism is infinitely stronger than the case for non-materialism, I think we’re still good.

The case for materialism cannot be stronger because it exists in the realm of thoughts, not things! I would prefer to be “thingless” rather than thoughtless.

Physical objects cannot reason because they lack insight, understanding and the power to choose the best explanation.

Even leaving aside your deliberate failure to acknowledge the demonstrable existence of emergent properties…

The failure is on the part of those who have not explained the precise mechanisms alleged to have produced insight, understanding and the power to choose.

…it’s your assertion that this is a self-destructive view, not an objective fact.

Materialism is self-destructive because it derives thought from thoughtless activity, a metaphysical conjuring trick cloaked by the imposing term “emergent” as if it is self-explanatory. It is surpassed only by the fantasy that everything eventually succeeded in emerging from nothing, bringing itself into existence for no reason or purpose whatsoever…

Logical positivism was abandoned when its proponents realised the verification principle couldn’t be verified.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Logical positivism was abandoned when its proponents realised the verification principle couldn’t be verified.

As also the notion there can be no God because there is no proof of God is not subject to the verification principle.

Materialism is rooted in atheism, the refusal to believe in any kind of spirit.

 

[Aloysium]

The materialist’s dogma that there is a lack of evidence for non-physical phenomena ignores the subjectivity of all knowledge. . .

The “subjectivity” has to do with the relational quality of all knowledge.
Existence, the senses, understandings, all human activity, even with ourselves, all have to do with the forming of a relationship…
There is no taking us and what we are doing out of any equation.
Any finding that does not acknowledge this is invalid, as that finding is true under those specific circumstances.
Engaging in a relationship with reality is a mental phenomenon.
This is not to say that physical interaction is not taking place, since it is happening in the world…
But, claiming that all is explainable in purely physical terms, when the act of making such a claim is one of the mind, sounds absurd.

 

[wanstronian]

It can’t be helped if you are blind to the evidence.

Such an easy thing to say! If in doubt, resort to fallacy! Don’t you think it’s weird though how, statistically, the most intelligent 5% of the planet’s population are also somehow too stupid or “blind” to see this evidence! (not that I claim to be in this percentile)

If by evidence you demand that you be able to touch God’s hands and see his face, you are certainly barking up the wrong tree.

No, that is not necessary (although it would settle the matter once and for all, so I can’t imagine why he doesn’t appear and show us atheists how wrong we’ve been!) I just would like to see something that proves the existence of your creator god. Something that can be tested and shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that it has no naturalistic explanation. It should be easy, so why has nobody ever done it?

No it isn’t. some things we imagine cannot be done. You imagine that a multiverse might exist. I demand that you offer the proof.

I have no proof. I can imagine lots of things for which no proof exists. But (and I need you to read this carefully as your line of argument is based on a misunderstanding which this sentence corrects) I am not asserting that a multiverse exists, you’re still arguing a straw man with this. You, on the other hand, are asserting the existence of a creator god. The burden of proof is on you.

You offer nothing but the hope that some day science will prove it.

Not at all - again you’re putting words in my mouth. I don’t care if science proves it or not - it isn’t necessary to support an atheistic point of view.

All logic is against our finding other universes, never mind an infinity of them that would be required to avoid theism of any kind.

I admit the chances are slim. However I don’t for one second admit that proving the existence of a multiverse is necessary to reject the idea of deities. I don’t know where you get your logic for this argument.

We can’t even get out of our own solar system never mind explore parallel universes and an infinity of them to prove they exist.

Not now. But for the last time, you are arguing a straw man. I am not claiming that multiverses exist, nor am I claiming that science will definitely prove it. If you continue to respond to me as if I had claimed either of these things, I will know you have no real argument and stop responding.

Your agnosticism is touching. What, then, is another alternative for which you also have no proof?

I think that’s the difference between people like me and people like you. I’m happy admitting I don’t know, whereas you have to pretend you do know, and curiously, what you “know” is exactly what you want to be true!

It seems you are willing to believe in any alternatives except God. Rather dogmatic, heh?

It would be if it were true, but again you are arguing fallaciously. Show me convincing evidence, and I’ll believe. It’s that simple. The complete opposite of dogmatism in fact!

Tell me, what evidence would you require to concede your belief in God is false? If scientists tomorrow proved the existence of the multiverse, would you stop believing in God? If not that, then what? Who’s really the dogmatic one here?

 

[wanstronian]

You must be a wonderful dancer Wanstro, you sure can do a quick sidestep. You seem to claim that science doesn’t reject purpose, an underlying essence, the absence of verification by the senses, and underlying causes, it ignores them. Wo! that is a fine distinction between what is meant by “ignore” not have the same meaning as “reject”.

There is a distinction, do you truly believe there is not? To “reject” something, you need to consider its value. That’s why I don’t “reject” Marxism when washing the dishes. If it has no bearing, and has been repeatedly shown to have no bearing, then it is safely ignored.

That said, even if science did actively reject the supernatural, it would be absolutely right to do so. The supernatural is by definition undetectable, untestable, unmeasurable. Who in their right mind would form a scientific theory with such a component. Would you climb on board an airplane that proudly boasted a supernatural propulsion mechanism?

Wait a minute, going over some of your responses, gives me a clue. How about this: reject implies a plausible, logical, or some other reason for not accepting something and “ignore” implies to dismiss something with a hand wave.

Those are your words, not mine.

For example, your response to in post #120 "This is just a red herring. At best, it’s just a preposterous analogy! “ignores” CharlemagneIII’s obvious argument that things can be dogmatic without being close minded.

What was a red herring is pretending that the notion of jumping down one’s own throat is analogous with asserting that science will never be able to prove hypothesis X.

Dogma is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” In other words, you’re being told what to think and believe. That sounds pretty closed-minded to me. Particularly if those laying down the principles are doing so without any supporting evidence, or in contravention of good evidence.

Saying “Science will never prove X” is closed-minded.

IMO, those that “ignore” instead of “reject” that are close minded.

Depending on context, I agree with you. But like I said, I ignore the weather in Japan when I’m mowing the lawn in the UK. Do you believe that’s closed-minded?

As for me, I prefer to discuss issues rather than engage in arguments as I am doing now. So I will give you the last word unless your response is done with a closed mind.

Yppop

Well, you are not in a position to judge whether my mind is closed, unless by “wanstronian has a closed mind” you mean, “wanstronian doesn’t agree with what I think.” In which case, I think you’re hoist by your own petard.

 

[Solus_vistor]

I have also watched the Brisbane dialogue between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig some time ago. It was rather entertaining, even funny, watching how the physicist’s ignorance of what religion, exegesis and contemporary theology were all about was matched only by the philosopher’s ignorance of how mathematical physics works and what contemporary cosmological theories are all about.

Galileo (or was it Bacon?) spoke of the two book written by God, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. I do not think He would have written two books had He intended to have one of them used to explain or dismiss parts of what was written in the other one.

There is only one thing worse than religion masquerading as science: science masquerading as religion.

 

[ynotzap]

The God of the Gaps positing God as the explanation for whatever science can not explain.
also God’s role declines as science progresses. Questions like “Where did God come from? If God can exist without being caused why can’t matter?” These are some of the ideas kicking around in our intellectual institutions by those of a materialistic ideology.

I offer my response: If God was caused then He is the effect of a greater cause and He couldn’t be God in the first place
If God was not caused and He exists, then Existence must be His Nature-“I Am, Who
Am”

Matter has potency ( a capacity to become) and it can not become all that it can become at one time. Example: water can become steam, water can become ice. and it can not become all of these states of existence at one time, matter is subject to change. Matter is in constant motion in varying degrees, it does not explain itself and is moved by another.

God who is Pure Being does not have a capacity to become, HE IS! When we speak of God we must necessarily think of Him in an existential way. In other words “that He is” and not “What He Is”

Matter is sustained by God who is infinite so matter appears infinite when it is essentially finite.
They are looking for God in the wrong places and taking a lot for granted.

 

[yankeeredneck]

I’ve always known Hawking and Dawkins to admit that they are speculating when they propose something that is, as you say, “baseless”. Notice that they do not proclaim their speculations to be dogma as religions do.

If I am wrong, give me a link to an article or video where they claim that a speculation of theirs is a legitimate theory.

Any reference to origins of the universe or of life is speculative, since nobody was there to observe it. The so-called “Theory” of Evolution is pure speculation, based on evidence observable only in the present. None of it is testable. The belief in special creation is likewise based upon belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, not testable facts. One’s beliefs are filtered through one’s worldview.

 

[cfauster]

Neither “God of the gaps” nor “scientism/materialism of the gaps” are necessary or helpful within science itself.

But sometimes legitimate thought in the realm of philosophy and theology (metaphysics in particular) is inappropriately held to standards that should constrain only science. Not all rational thought is science per se. In fact, science does raise questions that go beyond science. Answers to those metaphysical “beyond” questions should be compatible with science, yes, but that doesn’t mean that science itself necessarily favors one metaphysical position over another.

“God of the gaps” (or an unidentified but potentially supernatural “Designer of the gaps”) can be good philosophy and theology, but not good science. How can one claim that if a natural explanation existed for something, scientists already should have discovered the explanation? A natural explanation might never be found, or it might be found at some point in the future. No one can yet know or say, scientifically.

“Atheism/naturalism of the gaps” likewise can be a defensible metaphysical position, but not good science. How can one say that there must be a purely natural explanation for every mystery, or (even worse) say that natural explanations will eventually be found for every question that science poses? There might be some scientific questions for which humans never find natural explanations, and among those, some might indeed not have natural explanations because a supernatural agent is/was acting.

When we don’t currently have a scientific explanation for something, all science can say is that the question remains open.

 

[ynotzap]

Intelligent design for example is a very scientific concept. The root meaning of science is taken from the Latin word “sciens” meaning “to know” true open science does not limit itself to just knowledge of the empirical or physical. There are mathematical and metaphysical truths. The difference is that they are understood at a deeper level of comprehension. To an empiricist whose only source of knowledge is taken from the physical world, this comprehension is sometimes call “semantics” Prejudice and bias are forms of ignorance. If the knowledge we gain from our objective reasoning about the physical world leads us to the knowledge of God’s existence, is this “unscientific”? Isn’t the ultimate quest of the mind the quest for truth. It’s in our nature. A child asks “Why”, a scientist explores, and even a liar doesn’t like to be lied to. The truth will set us free! We depend on the physical "extrinsically 'for our knowledge because of union of body and soul. We abstract those deeper truths from our first ideas we get in our contact with the physical world. I’m afraid many scientists can’t see the trees for the forest.

The order and finality of the Cosmos reveal and intelligent cause. By the light of human reason God’s existence can be proven by metaphysical argument. It is also confirmed by our faith.
Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made.(Rom1-2;20-21) They never make the transcendence from the physical to the spiritual, not physical therefore not real.

 

[cfauster]

I agree with the previous post on just about everything!

In my previous post I neglected to add that of course, God is free to act in both ordinary ways that fit the patterns we call natural and lawful, as well as in other, supernatural ways. According to the Church, sometimes when God acts in extraordinary ways it is (at least partly) for the purpose of revealing truth to us, and we call such things miracles. But I don’t think God’s actions are limited to the miraculous.

In any case, indeed there is rational truth that is metaphysical. Science does not have a corner on all truth, not even all rational (reason-based) truth.

You mentioned intelligent design (ID theory). For me, the distinction between ID and science is pretty mundane and practical, not theological or even very philosophical: I just don’t see how we can put very much stock in isolated tentative, preliminary, and speculative probability calculations.

ID can’t calculate probabilities for design scenarios (how probable is it that God directly and specially created something rather than using “unintelligent” natural processes) because the unidentified designer is potentially supernatural. So, unlike science, ID can’t compare two (or more) estimated probabilities when ID compares design vs. non-design explanations. Instead, the design scenario gets a “free pass” as the default option (no probability calculation available for it!). ID is then left with the estimated probability for each (“any and all” - another issue) non-design explanation that has been imagined thus far.

I can accept in theory the concept that if an explanation’s probability is extremely low, we can set it aside for now. But given how often the best available explanation’s probability zooms upward once new information (data as well as explanations) becomes available, I think probability calculations are useful in science itself only when they can be compared to other calculations. ID just can’t do that, so that’s why I think while ID can be good metaphysics, one should be clear when one is going beyond science.

I agree with what you that metaphysical/theological questions, rather than scientific questions, are often the real issues. My point was simply that science itself can only distinguish design from non-design when the possible designer, even if unidentified, is assumed to be constrained by natural laws. Again, science is very limited, and not equipped to address the important metaphysical/philosophical questions. So again, I completely agree that we should not uncritically accept the metaphysical perspectives of scientists who claim that their metaphysics is merely science.

 

[cfauster]

Just wanted to note that Michael Tkacz’s article remains one of the best on the subject of intelligent design theory:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

 

[Aloysium]

Just wanted to note that Michael Tkacz’s article remains one of the best on the subject of intelligent design theory:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

The truth or falsity of the claim that the diversity of living species is due to some sort of evolutionary process is a matter to be settled through biological research.

I am assuming that most people would say we are a “living species”, so I would humbly disagree, at least with my understanding of what the author means. Now, it seems obvious to me that animals have changed greatly, taking on very many different forms and sizes since they were first created.This fact has been taken a step further however, so that there is currently wide-spread belief that science has or will eventually explain how animals became man.

There is a gap between animals and man that some scientists say will be explained by future research and others see as a direct purposeful act of God.

We are not rocks. We are not plants. We are not animals. (We are not angels.) The complexity of these systems cannot be understood as having come about solely on the basis of the properties of matter in itself. There has to be some other organizational process at work. Since it exists, it could be seen as a natural biological force, driving matter forward to self-awareness and beyond. This only means that some people are intent on taking God out of the picture. God is in the gaps, as He is in what is known and what is beyond, as Creator of all that exists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Such an easy thing to say! If in doubt, resort to fallacy! Don’t you think it’s weird though how, statistically, the most intelligent 5% of the planet’s population are also somehow too stupid or “blind” to see this evidence! (not that I claim to be in this percentile)

This I call the fallacy of arrogance: the notion that if you are really intelligent you can’t see evidence for God.

When your argument is this weak, you have really lost all credibility. Good-bye. :imsorry::sad_bye:

 

[ynotzap]

Thank you. What amazes me, even primitive cultures admit of a higher power. They do misplace this higher power into creatures, false idols etc. They copy the scales on an armadillo and create shingles for their huts, and treat the armadillo as a sacred creature. For all the intelligence the scientists have they can not see the order, and purpose in the world and in the universe. They can’t see that random choice just doesn’t get it for the consistency of the natural order and purpose of things. It’s truly an intellectual blindness. God gives grace to the simple and humble, and resists the proud, self-sufficient and self-righteous. It a blessing to be child-like, they are malleable. Jesus stated "don’t prevent the children from coming to Me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it. Keep praying for our separated brothers.One of the astronauts on his return to earth remarked how anyone could say there is no God after looking at the earth and the universe. They use the principles of math to figure what trajectory to aim a rocket so that the orbit is accomplished, but they can’t see that the same principle is already in place when observing the orbit of the moon or planets. Not a sign of the Divine, give us a break. the world is in darkness because they rejected the Light.