Questions to Atheists about God-of-the-Gaps

[Sparkythedog]

I consider your comment to be an excellent example of science of the gaps - to fill a lacuna in the understanding of what constitutes human nature, a mechanistic, totally untestable, view of consciousness is proposed.

I don’t understand your objection.

It seems to me that the term “supernatural” tends to conjure dark reflections of some people’s tendency to engage in wild speculations.
In the context of this discussion, I would take it to mean that the object that we are attempting to understand is not physical, like power, fame, wealth, etc.

The spirit is the fundamental aspect of human nature that enables us to engage in relationships, to love. That’s it basically, imho.

How does a spirit do this? How does it interact with our bodies?

 

[Bradski]

Before I ask, let me make the disclaimer that I do NOT intend to start a fight. I’m NOT here to try to prove anyone wrong. It’s just some honest questions.

Now, to the questions: Do you consider that it is at least possible that a gap of knowledge has only a supernatural explanation?

If not, why not, and how is that any less a leap of faith than theism?

If so, then when we see a gap of knowledge that science does not yet have a proven explanation, is there a point in inquiry in which a supernatural explanation would at least be worth considering? Or do you implicitly trust that scientific (or otherwise secular) explanations will eventually fill in the gap? If the latter, then how is that any less a leap of faith than believing that God fills in the gaps?

Thanks.

To start with, we all know, or at least make the assumption that the supernatural cause to which you refer would be God. It’s even in the question itself: God of the gaps.

Nevertheless, if there is a gap in our knowledge and there is no definitive explanation, then there is ALWAYS a proposal for a scientific explanation of some sort. A kind of placeholder that will do until we can figure it out more accurately.

That explanation may turn out to be hopelessly wrong, but science is in the business of making best guess estimates if all the facts are not in. That’s what a hypothesis is. And seeing as science, by it’s very definition, deals with the natural world, it cannot, by definition, include the supernatural in any hypothesis.

Even if it was to include it, then simply saying ‘The cause may be supernatural’, is not, in itself, an explanation. It simply means: ‘We can’t find a natural cause’.

There are two problems with this. The first being…at what point do you stop looking for a natural answer and declare it to actually be supernatural? Who makes that decision? Who makes the call that further scientific enquiry will not be carried out? Nobody is going to do this because, as I mentioned earlier, there will ALWAYS be a natural hypothesis.

The second problem with declaring something to be supernatural is…who is going to lay claim to whatever supernatural entity has caused this? This is where your particular God of the gaps makes appearance. You would lay claim to it being your god (lower case intentional as there are other gods that other people would want to be considered). Or it could be poltergeists, ghosts, your dead Grandad - where does the list end?

Well, it ends, as far as you are concerned, with your God. In which case, you can join the queue of people laying claim to other supernatural causes and make your case.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Fideism is the belief in a dogma without proof.

The atheist’s dogma is that there is no God, a dogma for which he has no proof.

Moreover, the Courts have defined atheism as a religion.

Guess you’ll have to learn to live with it?

This is where you are wrong and I recommend you take another look at my earlier post because I specifically said that atheism is not the belief that God cannot exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. The only reason that the word atheist exists is because religion is so prevalent. Atheism is not a dogma because it is not a belief it is a statement of disbelief. Now I acknowledge that some atheists DO hold the claim that God cannot exist and that Would be a belief with no proof but that is not the case for all. And the court does not view atheism as a religion. What you are referring to is the view of how atheism fits into protection in the first amendment, and their decision was that a position on the case of divinity would be considered a religion so as to be protected. However a religion is more than an opinion on divinity there are other things needed for one a set of beliefs. Atheism has no set of beliefs in fact if all you know about someone is that they are an atheist then you barely anything about them.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Before I ask, let me make the disclaimer that I do NOT intend to start a fight. I’m NOT here to try to prove anyone wrong. It’s just some honest questions.

Now, to the questions: Do you consider that it is at least possible that a gap of knowledge has only a supernatural explanation?

Perhaps…

If so, then when we see a gap of knowledge that science does not yet have a proven explanation, is there a point in inquiry in which a supernatural explanation would at least be worth considering? Or do you implicitly trust that scientific (or otherwise secular) explanations will eventually fill in the gap? If the latter, then how is that any less a leap of faith than believing that God fills in the gaps?

Thanks.

A supernatural explanation would be worthy of considering if the evidence might point clearly in such a direction, however it would necessarily be at the very bottom of the list of other more natural causes as so far all suspected supernatural causes for repeated Earthly phenomena have been consistently explained through science.

Further, should a supernatural correlation be associated with a given phenomena, would it not necessarily cease to be supernatural? For if it might be properly proven through repeatable, irrefutable, physical evidence how might one yet claim it to be supernatural? Would not the discovery of an order of magnitude above that of nature simply lead to an expansion of what had been previously considered natural? For how might a force be both outside nature and yet integrally connected to it at the same time…?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In the past there were many things that we could not explain with our (then current) scientific models. Earthquakes, lightning, planetary motion… Were those things supernatural?

Yes they were at the time - I think we all know what.

What’s a spirit?

The hypothesised intangible and unpredictable cause of an inexplicable material effect?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Now I would say that there is no gap of knowledge I can think of that the supernatural would fill because I do not believe there is a supernatural because there is no evidence of the supernatural.

This sounds like a non-falsifiable apriori analytic statement I think.
You seem to be saying:

1. gaps of knowledge are due to lack of evidence of a material cause.
2. identification of a supernatural/spiritual cause requires the same sort of evidence as a natural/material cause.
3. Therefore no gap of knowledge can ever be explained by a supernatural cause.

Perhaps this is just a logical tautology then without real world application.
The mistake I believe is in the 2nd line.

The possibility of a supernatural cause requires acceptance of the validity of different types of “evidence” in pursuing true causes from material effects.

If after a 1000 years science still cannot adequately explain, say, levitation by means of a natural cause…then it seems valid enough to me that we can hypothesise the existence of an intangible cause. It is the continued inability of scientists to explain the effect with a tangible cause that constitutes a possibly valid form of “evidence”. Obviously it is not coercive enough to constitute full proof … but it is coercive enough to allow us to start proposing supernatural hypotheses along side natural hypotheses. And this all the more so if we have run out of natural/material hypotheses.

So on the basis of a spiritual/supernatural hypothesis we may test and find a way of predicting levitational likelihood (eg only by very disciplined holy people devoted to a god of popular piety when they pray deeply).

Such testing may well result in more consistent results than any previous material hypothesis. They need not be perfect because if we are dealing with an intangible entity that is personal (ie having arbitrary free will) then sometimes it will act and sometimes, under the same material circumstances, it may choose not to.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . How does a spirit do this? How does it interact with our bodies?

The spirit and the body do not interact. They combine to form a new being that is a person. The person thinks and relates, having been created self-other - a being in relation to and connected with everything else. The monitor on which these words appear, our brains and everything physical that’s going on, all this continuous complex collection of physical events, is all you will find, if that is all you are looking for. But, it is a person who is doing the looking and finding something “out there”.

We are ultimately relational beings existing within a physical universe. Our relationality is perfect when we love. God is Love, perfect Relationality, Father. We are made in His image, for the purpose of participating in all this wonder, with love.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

This sounds like a non-falsifiable apriori analytic statement I think.
You seem to be saying:

1. gaps of knowledge are due to lack of evidence of a material cause.
2. identification of a supernatural/spiritual cause requires the same sort of evidence as a natural/material cause.
3. Therefore no gap of knowledge can ever be explained by a supernatural cause.

Perhaps this is just a logical tautology then without real world application.
The mistake I believe is in the 2nd line.

The possibility of a supernatural cause requires acceptance of the validity of different types of “evidence” in pursuing true causes from material effects.

If after a 1000 years science still cannot adequately explain, say, levitation by means of a natural cause…then it seems valid enough to me that we can hypothesise the existence of an intangible cause. It is the continued inability of scientists to explain the effect with a tangible cause that constitutes a possibly valid form of “evidence”. Obviously it is not coercive enough to constitute full proof … but it is coercive enough to allow us to start proposing supernatural hypotheses along side natural hypotheses. And this all the more so if we have run out of natural/material hypotheses.

So on the basis of a spiritual/supernatural hypothesis we may test and find a way of predicting levitational likelihood (eg only by very disciplined holy people devoted to a god of popular piety when they pray deeply).

Such testing may well result in more consistent results than any previous material hypothesis. They need not be perfect because if we are dealing with an intangible entity that is personal (ie having arbitrary free will) then sometimes it will act and sometimes, under the same material circumstances, it may choose not to.

I disagree, lack of explanation, no matter how long the phenomenon goes without explanation does not mean that we can then assert that it is supernatural. Because your example is essentially greek mythology. they tried to understand natural phenomena, they could not so they assumed it was supernatural. Now the only reason I rule out the supernatural is because there is no evidence of it. You say I need to accept different types of “evidence” but there are no other types of “evidence” there is only one kind of evidence and the example you follow up with is just asserting an intangible cause because we can’t find a tangible cause. So if there is Ever a single recorded instance of the supernatural then go ahead and allow that as possibility to explain something otherwise the supernatural cannot be an explanation for something, especially if you only call it supernatural because we do not understand it Yet.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I disagree, lack of explanation, no matter how long the phenomenon goes without explanation does not mean that we can then assert that it is supernatural. Because your example is essentially greek mythology. they tried to understand natural phenomena, they could not so they assumed it was supernatural. Now the only reason I rule out the supernatural is because there is no evidence of it. You say I need to accept different types of “evidence” but there are no other types of “evidence” there is only one kind of evidence and the example you follow up with is just asserting an intangible cause because we can4 't find a tangible cause. So if there is Ever a single recorded instance of the supernatural then go ahead and allow that as possibility to explain something otherwise the supernatural cannot be an explanation for something, especially if you only call it supernatural because we do not understand it Yet.

As I say, if for you the only acceptable evidence of a cause is a tangible one… then obviously the supernatural will never exist for you.

For me, if a hypothesized intangible cause predicts a tangible effect sometimes, while a tangible cause is yet to be hypothesized let alone found… then it’s a no-brainer.

The ability of an intangible based hypothesis to relatively successfully predict an effect where a natural based hypothesis cannot is evidence enough for me until a more successful natural one is found.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . So if there is Ever a single recorded instance of the supernatural then go ahead and allow that as possibility to explain something otherwise the supernatural cannot be an explanation for something, especially if you only call it supernatural because we do not understand it Yet.

There is one single recorded instance of the supernatural, and it takes on an infinite number of forms. It is called creation.

Bunch of random thoughts:

What would be your explanation for the act of understanding?
Who is it that understands?

To call a storm or tsunami evidence of Poseidon would not be an attempt to explain it, but rather to attempt a relationship with a vastly more powerful force. Idolatry has been seen as an evil from the beginnings as described in scripture.

It seems to me people mystify the idea of what is supernatural; I personally don’t like the term. Like “a-theist” it presupposes we are anywhere close to being in agreement as to what constitutes nature or God.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

As I say, if for you the only acceptable evidence of a cause is a tangible one… then obviously the supernatural will never exist for you.

For me, if a hypothesized intangible cause predicts a tangible effect sometimes, while a tangible cause is yet to be hypothesized let alone found… then it’s a no-brainer.

Wow I have to say it is taking a lot of restraint not to make a certain joke right now, but I want to be respectful. anyway What do you mean by evidence? because not having a solution to a problem and then imagining a solution with no real evidence is not proof of the supernatural. And keep in mind you said the intangible sometimes explains it so that really isn’t a big standard. So if by evidence you mean that the supernatural would sometimes explain the problem so therefore the supernatural is real that isn’t evidence it is special pleading(ie your supernatural explanation is correct over everyone else’s, unless you simultaneously believe in all religions)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Wow I have to say it is taking a lot of restraint not to make a certain joke right now, but I want to be respectful. anyway What do you mean by evidence? because not having a solution to a problem and then imagining a solution with no real evidence is not proof of the supernatural. And keep in mind you said the intangible sometimes explains it so that really isn’t a big standard. So if by evidence you mean that the supernatural would sometimes explain the problem so therefore the supernatural is real that isn’t evidence it is special pleading(ie your supernatural explanation is correct over everyone else’s, unless you simultaneously believe in all religions)

If a hypothesis predicts better than any other model is it logical to deny it may be true?

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

There is one single recorded instance of the supernatural, and it takes on an infinite number of forms. It is called creation.

Bunch of random thoughts:

What would be your explanation for the act of understanding?
Who is it that understands?

To call a storm or tsunami evidence of Poseidon would not be an attempt to explain it, but rather to attempt a relationship with a vastly more powerful force. Idolatry has been seen as an evil from the beginnings as described in scripture.

It seems to me people mystify the idea of what is supernatural; I personally don’t like the term. Like “a-theist” it presupposes we are anywhere close to being in agreement as to what constitutes nature or God.

Once again I disagree on this, it is not consensus that the universe is supernatural.
As for your question on understanding, the person who understands it the one understanding. And I wasn’t saying that a storm was evidence of Poseidon specifically but some supernatural force causing the storm. And it’s not idolatry it’s religion.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

If a hypothesis predicts better than any other model is it logical to deny it may be true?

It is illogical if there is no evidence for the hypothesis. If someone asked me why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate I Could say that there are undetectable rockets that pull at the fabric of reality at the edge of the universe stretching it out, that would explain the expansion of the universe pretty well, except it doesn’t because that kind of rocket doesn’t exist. If the explanation is not proven to exist than the explanation no matter how well it explains something cannot be considered true until such time it Is proven true.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is illogical if there is no evidence for the hypothesis. If someone asked me why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate I Could say that there are undetectable rockets that pull at the fabric of reality at the edge of the universe stretching it out, that would explain the expansion of the universe pretty well, except it doesn’t because that kind of rocket doesn’t exist. If the explanation is not proven to exist than the explanation no matter how well it explains something cannot be considered true until such time it Is proven true.

I think it’s clear what I said, but I have no idea what you are saying sorry.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I think it’s clear what I said, but I have no idea what you are saying sorry.

Probably my fault sometimes I get a bit lost in my own head when I write, basically what I am saying is the supernatural being able to explain something is not proof of the supernatural.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Probably my fault sometimes I get a bit lost in my own head when I write, basically what I am saying is the supernatural being able to explain something is not proof of the supernatural.

Now you understand the difference between religious people and secular people. We are prepared to take a risk on the basis of practical truth which may not be as intellectually coercive as your evidential truth.

I am simply pointing out that such faith can be well justified in the complete absence of contrary natural explanations.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Now you understand the difference between religious people and secular people. We are prepared to take a risk on the basis of practical truth which may not be as intellectually coercive as your evidential truth.

I am simply pointing out that such faith can be well justified in the complete absence of contrary natural explanations.

And I am just saying given the history of people invoking the supernatural to explain what science has not yet answered they have been wrong. If you want to have faith then please let no one stop you, but personally I don’t value faith(as in belief with no evidence) on any matter. And to be clear there is no evidential truth and practical truth, there is what we know, which is supported by evidence and what we can guess which sometimes has some evidence and other times doesn’t.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And I am just saying given the history of people invoking the supernatural to explain what science has not yet answered they have been wrong. If you want to have faith then please let no one stop you, but personally I don’t value faith(as in belief with no evidence) on any matter. And to be clear there is no evidential truth and practical truth, there is what we know, which is supported by evidence and what we can guess which sometimes has some evidence and other times doesn’t.

Truth is but a means to living practically.
In which case nobody, including yourself, actually lives by the sort of evidential truth you theoretically pursue and profess here.

We live by making practical judgements on incomplete models of understanding and probabilities. So excuse me for not believing that you actually believe what you opine above.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Truth is but a means to living practically.
In which case nobody, including yourself, actually lives by the sort of evidential truth you theoretically pursue and profess here.

We live by making practical judgements on incomplete models of understanding and probabilities. So excuse me for not believing that you actually believe what you opine above.

To be clear I am not saying I only make decisions with 100% evidence, in fact nothing is 100% proven but that isn’t what I said at all. I said my beliefs are supported by evidence, which they are, and in most things in life I don’t need a lot of evidence. If I want to check if I have my wallet in my pocket because I honestly don’t remember if I brought it with me I don’t need a DNA and fingerprint check on what is in my back pocket to ensure it is my wallet I just pat my pants and if I feel a wallet shape then I probably have it. And by the way I would wager most of your beliefs are supported by evidence as well. For example if you get an email about a Nigerian prince who needs some collateral to regain the throne I assume you don’t just send him money(I could be wrong, but you seem like an intelligent person). And yes we use incomplete systems, but those systems are partially complete there is evidence to support them. I mean you act like having evidence to support you is a negative, I assure you it is not.