Ignorance of the gaps

[Counterpoint]

What do you think?

Just FYI. The term “God of the gaps” argument was first coined by theologians, not atheists. That being said, I do believe it cuts both ways. Atheists are inclined to make “promissory materialism” arguments - arguments based on the view that science will eventually explain all gaps in our knowledge.

 

[cfauster]

I’m not sure what to make of the atheism reference, but I have thought about the role of science in seeking material/natural explanations.

Materialism or naturalism-of-the-gaps would be the case if someone were to conclude, metaphysically, that there must be a natural explanation for everything, even though no such explanation is yet known for some (a great many, actually) things.

I agree that we should not make that kind of claim, not even as motivation for doing science. We can keep searching for scientific explanations without making naturalism-of-the-gaps metaphysical claims. When we succeed as scientists in finding those natural explanations, we are not thereby detracting from any valid store of “evidence” for God!

If a particular question remains stubbornly open (unsolved), we can’t tell whether that’s because:

1. we’re just ignorant and the explanation is there and waiting - albeit maybe indefinitely - to be discovered,

or

1. the explanation really isn’t there to be discovered, no matter hard long/hard we try and no matter how much our descendants might discover and learn, because the open question really is, inherently and fundamentally, an unfathomable mystery.

Since we can’t know which is the case, we have plenty of motivation to keep trying to learn what we can through science. We don’t need to arrogantly predict success beforehand. We should just keep trying. And again, when a scientist humbly and faithfully and doggedly keeps searching for natural explanations, she/he is not attacking God or God’s church. Just the opposite, in fact. A determined scientist need not be an atheist!

 

[EasterBeagle]

OK … but again, from the blog post I recommended in my previous post: “However, the ‘waters above’ the firmament are not presented in Genesis 1 as clouds or mist, but as liquid water … there are different Hebrew words that would have been used for vaporous water.”

Water exists in three states, its still water. States of water; solid, liquid & gas:

ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/dvlp/wtr.rxml

 

[cfauster]

There are a couple of issues here, and there are a couple of non-issues.

Perhaps the main issue is the relationship between Biblical text and the natural world. There are several possibilities:

1. God specially revealed to the Biblical authors scientific truths otherwise unavailable (that is, not known through general common understandings prevalent where and when those Biblical authors lived), and those authors were consciously aware of those scientific truths as much as they were aware of the spiritual truths being given them by God. Under this scenario, when the Biblical authors wrote about God “stretching” out the heavens, they meant the expansion of space-time in the same sense as that discovered through science in the 20th century. When they wrote about water above the heavens, they meant either water vapor or mist (tiny droplets of liquid water suspended in the air), not the ocean of liquid water commonly thought by ancient near-eastern people to exist on the top side of a solid dome-shaped firmament in the sky.
2. This second possibility is like the first, except that rather than having advanced scientific understanding themselves, the Biblical authors were unaware that what they were writing had hidden double-meanings God was using to encode secret scientific truths that later generations (such as in our scientific age) would discover and thereby trust the timeless spiritual truths that God wants all generations of Bible readers to trust.
3. The third possibility is that God allowed the Biblical writers convey timeless spiritual truths using their own common contemporary understandings of the natural world. Under this scenario, later generations such as ours living in a scientific age need to distinguish between scientific truth and spiritual truth, and trust that God revealed the latter in the Bible using imperfect human “vessels” whose writings would reflect their now-outdated and erroneous understandings of some aspects of the natural world.

I think the third option above is most probably the case. Some others prefer one or the other of the first two options.

I do think that despite our different choices in this matter, we can remain united as fellow children of God, and can mutually build up rather than tear down each other in the faith.

 

[cfauster]

A new book review in Christianity Today likewise appeals for respectful, constructive dialogue as we strive together to read the Bible in the most fruitful and faithful way:
christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/april-web-only/reading-genesis-without-philosophical-blinders.html

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I think the third option above is most probably the case. Some others prefer one or the other of the first two options. . .

My vote is for (2) with the proviso that the message occurs within a personal relationship with God and not everyone would pick up on the same meaning. I cannot justify this choice, but it feels right.

 

[Sochi]

… 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?

It’s not the same kind of “gap,” Yet there is a small point to be made. See the “signature” below: V

 

[Sochi]

…
I think the third option above is most probably the case. Some others prefer one or the other of the first two options.

All three of those make monumental assumptions very unacceptable even to some who “believe” in a god.

 

[Aloysium]

“Religion and atheism are holding patterns of comfort and imagined surity until you are ready to give up what you think is your very self in order to Know” ~Anon

I’m not exactly sure what this means, but it appears to be an unacceptable monumental assumption.

 

[Sochi]

I’m not exactly sure what this means, but it appears to be an unacceptable monumental assumption.

Religion postulates a personal god. Science doesn’t exclude one, but has, like religion, not proof either way. That is the primary ignorance of gap. To assume that faith or belief is “knowledge” is monumentally unacceptable. So is outright denial of deity, except of a personal one, save as an interim being approaching ALL, which some claim God to be.

 

[EasterBeagle]

Science doesn’t exclude one, but has, like religion, not proof either way.

"Some bold unsupported articulations by renowned atheists: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned” (atheist George Gaylord Simpson), “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (Richard Dawkins) and “Not just science but our own other reflections have told us that there is nothing remaining to be explained that could only be explained by the existence of a supreme being, creator or first cause” (Christopher Hitchens) [personal comment: No wonder we have so many teenage suicides, we are teaching kids that they’re nothing more than the forward edge of evolutionary sludge].

Conversely, Romans 1:20 affirms that God’s existence is “clearly perceived in the things that have been made”, similarly to how a painting is proof that there must have been an artist who painted it. As the Bible explains, when we scientifically analyze “the things that have been made”, we find God’s fingerprints all over them. Atheists espouse exclusive believe in science. Notwithstanding science is an investigation of the natural world, they seem to refrain from applying such principals for investigating the existence of God. It’s certainly not for lack of evidence, in as much as an unwillingness to proceed in the direction that science leads them. Unbelievers abandon the pursuit of genuine truth, in place of a manic quest of finding unattainable naturalist explanations. Atheists make audacious claims that there is no evidence to support a Supreme Being, as though these were universally accepted prognoses, but stop short of supporting their conclusions with any form of rational evidence. It is not difficult to scientifically establish planning, design and the existence of a Supreme Being, however some of these proofs can be complex. This is why Intelligent Design is typically met with immediate dismissal by nonbelievers, as it requires intellectual contemplation" (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Intelligent_Design.htm).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

"Some bold unsupported articulations by renowned atheists: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned” (atheist George Gaylord Simpson), "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design.

These are the kinds of arguments for atheism that are so uselss for persuading anybody of anything. They offer mere assertions without proof.

When I was an atheist, I used to comfort myself with the notion that I did not need proof that God does not exist. The more I thought about it, the more absurd I thought that position was. If I said to a crowded room full of people that I sensed there was a hungry bear outside the door waiting to devour us all, there would be two reactions necessary to everyone in that room. Prove the bear is outside the door. Or prove the bear is not outside the door. It is a matter of the gravest consequence to find out which proposition is true. One does not merely make the assumption that there is no bear and that this does not have to be proven.

If I say to the unbeliever that I sense the presence of a hungry God who created the universe and wants to devour us with his love, I would expect to be asked for some kind of evidence that such a God exists, and I would try to offer that evidence. But if the unbeliever says, “There is no such hungry God, and I don’t have to prove it,” I would think the unbeliever was denying me the same kind of evidence I was offering him.

Why is there no evidence that God does not exist? For the same reason we cannot prove that Zeus does exist. Neither proposition is true. If they were true, it would be possible to prove them, or at least take a stab at proving them.

 

[ngill09]

These are the kinds of arguments for atheism that are so uselss for persuading anybody of anything. They offer mere assertions without proof.

When I was an atheist, I used to comfort myself with the notion that I did not need proof that God does not exist. The more I thought about it, the more absurd I thought that position was. If I said to a crowded room full of people that I sensed there was a hungry bear outside the door waiting to devour us all, there would be two reactions necessary to everyone in that room. Prove the bear is outside the door. Or prove the bear is not outside the door. It is a matter of the gravest consequence to find out which proposition is true. One does not merely make the assumption that there is no bear and that this does not have to be proven.

If I say to the unbeliever that I sense the presence of a hungry God who created the universe and wants to devour us with his love, I would expect to be asked for some kind of evidence that such a God exists, and I would try to offer that evidence. But if the unbeliever says, “There is no such hungry God, and I don’t have to prove it,” I would think the unbeliever was denying me the same kind of evidence I was offering him.

Why is there no evidence that God does not exist? For the same reason we cannot prove that Zeus does exist. Neither proposition is true. If they were true, it would be possible to prove them, or at least take a stab at proving them.

There is an invisible hungry bear following you around. It will grab your soul right after you die and eat it. Do you believe me? Why or why not? What proof and evidence do you have that there is no such invisible hungry soul-eating bear? None. Checkmate.

 

[cfauster]

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops posted a helpful article by Dr. Jem Sullivan on the relationship between faith and reason, including science:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catechesis/catechetical-sunday/year-of-faith/parish-resource-jem-sullivan.cfm

 

[Aloysium]

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops posted a helpful article by Dr. Jem Sullivan . . .

The main point I believe is:

“‘Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.’ ‘Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried outin a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are’” (CCC 159).

I don’t believe the apparent conflict is between the faithful and science. It is between atheists and the faithful.
Reality is centred on God. Any science not dedicated to the revelation of His creation will lead us astray.
Most scientists today are atheists, which affects their approach to the study of nature and introduces serious bias in their findings.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is an invisible hungry bear following you around. It will grab your soul right after you die and eat it. Do you believe me? Why or why not? What proof and evidence do you have that there is no such invisible hungry soul-eating bear? None. Checkmate.

Here’s where your interpretation of the metaphor goes awry.

This is not checkmate if the soul-eating bear (Satan) is waiting for you to die and then eat you.

How do you prove it is not waiting for you to die? And how would you prepare yourself for death just in case?

Pascal anyone?

 

[Sochi]

"Some bold unsupported articulations by renowned atheists:

They are as supported or unsupported as the claims of those believing in an Abrahamic god, or other anthropomorphised deities.

[personal comment: No wonder we have so many teenage suicides, we are teaching kids that they’re nothing more than the forward edge of evolutionary sludge].

Kind of simplistic to blame “so many” teenage suicides on this fabricated over-arching reason. Actually, never heard that one articulated. Nor have I seen many, if any, religions offer very useful solutions to actual problems. It’s why I left the church as a teenager.

Conversely, Romans 1:20 affirms that God’s existence is “clearly perceived in the things that have been made”

So what? That is an affirmation made in a bit of Paulist writing written through a lens of pious projection. It is as weak and useless as a “proof” as are the statements of the scientists quoted above.

similarly to how a painting is proof that there must have been an artist who painted it.

Being an artist in four mediums myself, I do not see the mystery and awe of nature as any proof of the christianist conceptualization of a god. Actually, it disinclines me towards such a concept. The Abrahmic god as portrayed is much too small.

As the Bible explains, when we scientifically analyze “the things that have been made”, we find God’s fingerprints all over them.

That is pious fabrication, especially since the scientific method is a recent formulation and there is no mention of science in the Bible. Please explain what relevance this has to anything?

Atheists espouse exclusive believe [sic] in science.

Not at all. I’m an atheist in a very narrow sense, though I wouldn’t accept that as a general label for my viewpoint, save that I cannot believe in the anthropomorphized christianist god concept.

Notwithstanding science is an investigation of the natural world, they seem to refrain from applying such principals for investigating the existence of God.

In fact, it is exactly that methodology that leads many to atheism. On the other hand, having seen the alleged “science” of ID, one has to wonder how a mind that can think is able to have the astonishing cognitive dissonance required to force some parts of good investigation into a contorted mess and serve it up as acceptable. It is only proof that in those cases the proponent of ID had become an ideologue and is bending everything to serve an emotional attachment an unproven and improbable fantasy. The "not for lack of evidence is pious projection.

It’s certainly not for lack of evidence, in as much as an unwillingness to proceed in the direction that science leads them.

That is a horrifyingly naive and twisted assumption, as methodology doesn’t lead, it reveals. It is the prejudice of the scientist that might “lead” A perfect example of thin might be a person who has bastardized their intellectual clarity by introducing a foregone conclusion of a “designer.” In other words, only a pseudoscientist would be capable of the attempted pollution of any clear thought with the suggestion of a “designer.”

Unbelievers abandon the pursuit of genuine truth,

This is a pathetic straw man attempt, as it pre-defines unbelievers as not in pursuit of genuine truth. That, EB, is balderdash, and I’m surprised you didn’t censor that bit of obvious trash from your quotation.

…in place of a manic quest of finding unattainable naturalist explanations.

Again, this is a distortion, as science is a methodology for discovering the nature and dynamics of the measurable aspect of the world we live in. And if it had not found naturalist explanations for much, you and I would not be sitting in front of screens typing to an invisible audience, yes? It is also emotionally loaded by use of the word “manic” as a maneuver designed to elicit condescension. Have you read this page you quote so blithely from with any reference to semantic or psychometric principles?

(continued)

 

[Sochi]

Part 2

Atheists make audacious claims that there is no evidence to support a Supreme Being, as though these were universally accepted prognoses, but stop short of supporting their conclusions with any form of rational evidence.

They are audacious only in contrast to pious indignation stemming from a defensive stance relative to personal belief in a personal god. And they are right: there is no material evidence to support such an idea. If God is to be sought, it is not in the material world, as much as that world might in fact be integral with Deity. You are putting an impossible request and burden of proof on a discipline that has no competence or relevance in the area of your concern. Neither can it support the supposition of a designer. All that this quotation does is make noise about displeasure at the fact that someone has done exactly what the acvocates of design have done: drawn a conclusion from ideas not relevant to the question.

It is not difficult to scientifically establish planning, design and the existence of a Supreme Being,

Not only is it difficult, it is impossible, save by the most horrendous distortions and emotionalized projections, as demonstrated by the ID believers. And note, I said “believers,” not “knowers.”

however some of these proofs can be complex.

Of course they are! What Gordian knot holding impossibilities together isn’t?

This is why Intelligent Design is typically met with immediate dismissal by nonbelievers, as it requires intellectual contemplation"

Damn straight. About three seconds worth to see through it. I’ve given it way more attention than it deserves here. Or anywhere. (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Intelligent_Design.htm).

In the face of all that, this I hold to be True: ’ I swear to you, there are divine things more beautiful than words can tell’
Walt Whitman

 

[ngill09]

Here’s where your interpretation of the metaphor goes awry.

This is not checkmate if the soul-eating bear (Satan) is waiting for you to die and then eat you.

How do you prove it is not waiting for you to die? And how would you prepare yourself for death just in case?

Pascal anyone?

The soul-eating bear is not Satan, it is another being that an angel told me about in a dream. I know a song I can play for it that will drive it away, but it will only work if the bear thinks you worship me, so you’ll have to do that. If I’m wrong and the bear doesn’t exist, you’ll die and go to heaven and will have not lost anything. But if I’m right and the bear does exist, you have everything to gain by listening to me and everything to lose by ignoring me.

All kidding aside, the response that everyone has to ridiculous unprovable claims is to ignore them, just like you ignore the threat of Muslim Hell or bad karma or soul-eating invisible bears. If properly predisposed, some people will believe in certain ridiculous unprovable claims, but that is out of faith and there’s no reason anyone else should take them seriously.

 

[cfauster]

I am sympathetic to both of the apparent “sides” in this discussion.

Yes, bias can prevent scientists from doing science as well as they might have without the bias. But…

• That is true whether the bias comes from religious belief or from some other source, including commitments to philosophical or political or economic theories/systems.
• The motivation to do science sometimes comes from beyond science, and as long as the scientist guards against bias, the net value of the motivation can be positive rather than negative.

For example, Francis Crick was motivated in part by his desire to disprove what he called “vitalism,” and his definition of vitalism included any sort of theism, I think. No matter - he succeeded (with James Watson, and with the help of others including Rosalind Franklin) to solve the structure of the DNA molecule. Many other great scientists have been motivated - at least in part - by their faith in God, because they desired to “think God’s thoughts after Him.” Again, as long as one’s personal motivations include genuine curiosity and a commitment to proceed with healthy skepticism towards one’s own conclusions, the scientific method that tests and re-tests hypotheses and theories will succeed. The bias can be overcome. And if the extra-scientific motivation helped provide the determination to persevere, great.