Questions to Atheists about God-of-the-Gaps

[ynotzap]

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.

icamhif:

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

Yes, I know that my Christian Faith, is a supernatural revelation, and it has been proven to me that it is real, and science can’t touch it.

icamhif:

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?

Yes, to put a bug into scientific ears, so they have no excuse for not hearing, even though they probably would reject it, or not understand it which leaves the possibility of further investigation for open minds.

icamhif:

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.

I don’t trust that science will eventually fill the gap, as a matter of fact, I know that science will not fill the gap. One is a leap of faith based on ignorance, the other a confirmation of the leap of faith We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

To be clear I am not saying I only make decisions with 100% evidence, in fact nothing is 100% proven …

Great, then you are accepting my principle that in practice it is quite possible to non-foolishly, and perhaps even wisely, follow unproven hypotheses and models of reality (truth if you will) all the time.

So the practical illogicality that you are trying to defend is this:

• never act on a hypothesis/model that posits an occult cause even if the hypothesis is in fact a relatively successful predictor.
• but we are allowed to act on a hypothesis/model that posits a tangible cause if it has the same high predictive success rate?

This reasoning shows you are pre-biased against the possibility of occult causes being true.

It also shows that there are other forms of “evidence” we do in fact accept in daily life that you are not taking account of in your pure “philosophy”.

Namely, an explanation’s practical predictive ability … regardless of whether that explanation involves Newton’s laws, Fairies, Poseidon or the Christian God.

Obviously we must still follow Ochkam’s Razor - i.e. an explanation that posits a tangible cause (as opposed to an occult/hidden one), predictive abilities being equal, is always to be preferred.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Great, then you are accepting my principle that in practice it is quite possible to non-foolishly, and perhaps even wisely, follow unproven hypotheses and models of reality (truth if you will) all the time.

So the practical illogicality that you are trying to defend is this:

• never act on a hypothesis/model that posits an occult cause even if the hypothesis is in fact a relatively successful predictor.
• but we are allowed to act on a hypothesis/model that posits a tangible cause if it has the same high predictive success rate?

This reasoning shows you are pre-biased against the possibility of occult causes being true.

It also shows that there are other forms of “evidence” we do in fact accept in daily life that you are not taking account of in your pure “philosophy”.

Namely, an explanation’s practical predictive ability … regardless of whether that explanation involves Newton’s laws, Fairies, Poseidon or the Christian God.

Obviously we must still follow Ochkam’s Razor - i.e. an explanation that posits a tangible cause (as opposed to an occult/hidden one), predictive abilities being equal, is always to be preferred.

That’s not entirely what I said. What I said was that the supernatural cannot be an explanation for something until it is proven. operating under an incomplete hypothesis, while trying to find evidence to support your explanation is fine if there is a logical reason to believe the hypothesis. I did not say “never act on a hypothesis/model that posits an occult cause even if the hypothesis is in fact a relatively successful predictor” I said that you should not operate under such a model since there is NO evidence for the occult. Because anyone can make up a reason for why things happen and that reason will seem true sometimes. So in order for the supernatural to explain something there must be evidence for it.

And what do you mean by other “forms” of evidence? There aren’t different forms of evidence, so if you could elaborate on what you mean by that.

 

[Bradski]

This reasoning shows you are pre-biased against the possibility of occult causes being true.

Your problem is that you are taking your hypothesis to the wrong people. If you rock up to a science lab and start talking about the supernatural they will probably suggest to you that you are in the wrong department: ‘I think you need the paranormal office. They’re just down the corridor on the right’.

It’s like trying to discuss the rules of cricket in a football forum. It’s no good complaining that they won’t even consider discussing cricket, it’s just not applicable. Similarly, the guys in science will only consider natural causes. By definition, that’s what science does. If you want to ask if the supernatural is an option, then you need the paranormal department. Or maybe the theology group.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s not entirely what I said. What I said was that the supernatural cannot be an explanation for something until it is proven. operating under an incomplete hypothesis, while trying to find evidence to support your explanation is fine if there is a logical reason to believe the hypothesis. I did not say “never act on a hypothesis/model that posits an occult cause even if the hypothesis is in fact a relatively successful predictor” I said that you should not operate under such a model since there is NO evidence for the occult. Because anyone can make up a reason for why things happen and that reason will seem true sometimes. So in order for the supernatural to explain something there must be evidence for it.

And what do you mean by other “forms” of evidence? There aren’t different forms of evidence, so if you could elaborate on what you mean by that.

As I have mentioned a number of times,
empirical ability of an occult based explanation to fairly successfully predict is evidence enough for me (and many other sane, logical people) “to operate under such a model.”

And that effectively means the occult cause is reasonably judged a going cause .

I really don’t know what more you need from “explanation”, “cause” “evidence” if you accept truth is rarely more than probable (a model if you wish) in most real world situations.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your problem is that you are taking your hypothesis to the wrong people. If you rock up to a science lab and start talking about the supernatural they will probably suggest to you that you are in the wrong department: ‘I think you need the paranormal office. They’re just down the corridor on the right’.

It’s like trying to discuss the rules of cricket in a football forum. It’s no good complaining that they won’t even consider discussing cricket, it’s just not applicable. Similarly, the guys in science will only consider natural causes. By definition, that’s what science does. If you want to ask if the supernatural is an option, then you need the paranormal department. Or maybe the theology group.

You don’t think, say, a case of levitation is worthy of searching for a material explanation if you were presented with an opportunity to investigate?

Its not really about taking a hypothesis to the right people, its about taking evidence of an inexplicable tangible phenomenon to anyone who can offer a credible explanation.

I would take it first to the scientists of course. I am sure they would be very interested in a phenomenon that appears to defy the laws of currently understood Physics.

If they cannot explain it or predict its next likely occurrence I would then consider the other “experts” you mention. If the theologians came up with an occult explanation that was a reasonably successful predictor that would be evidence and truth enough for me…and for most unprejudiced people I suggest.

Of course, if you deny the very possibility of such things then that would vindicate your position above. But then, like I suggested originally, that would be an apriori analytic position that no one can falsify or argue with … and therefore having no provable real-world applicability.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

He is aware, there are many previous converations on it (see this one). In general there seems to be a disagreement on the semantics, even when someone fully qualifies their word usage.

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

I’ve generally acknowledge that the knowledge of humans is incomplete. But without a way of separating an outcome from a natural but unknown process from a super natural process I don’t see the label “super natural” as having much utility. That’s not to say it’s impossible, but I don’t find the label perfectly meaningful.

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?

I think a test or criteria for something being considered super natural to be a prerequisite for this question.

Or do you implicitly trust that scientific (or otherwise secular) explanations will eventually fill in the gap?

Nope, I think many things will remain unknown.

 

[Bradski]

You don’t think, say, a case of levitation is worthy of searching for a material explanation if you were presented with an opportunity to investigate?

Sure. Of course. If you have no idea how it works, then take it to the science lab AND the paranormal office. The first will give you a hypothesis for a natural answer and the other will give you one or more for a supernatural explanation.

Let’s say the science lab comes up with an hypothesis that effectively says: ‘We’re not exactly sure at the moment how it works, but here’s our current best shot at an explanation’, and the paranormal department says: ‘It’s magic’, which do you go with?

How long do you give the science guys before you tell them that there’s no more point in looking for an answer?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

How long do you give the science guys before you tell them that there’s no more point in looking for an answer?

This is the point! You set up a new hypothesis, you conduct experiments, and they all come back with a negative result, or the all results are inconclusive. How long before you give up, and admit that the hypothesis in wrong, and there is no reason to pursue it?

In real science, the first negative result invalidates the hypothesis. In the search of supernatural or the paranormal the experimenters never give up. If the experiment comes back negative, they will bring up the excuses. For the supernatural, they say that it was not in God’s plane that the hypothesis be “granted”, or the positive result would have taken away our “freedom” to believe. In the case of paranormal there is a disturbance in the “force”, due to the lack of belief of the skeptics. But never in a million years they would admit that the hypothesis is useless and needs to be abandoned.

 

[ynotzap]

Sure.

How long do you give the science guys before you tell them that there’s no more point in looking for an answer?

As much time as they want until they finally realize they are looking in the wrong places for the answers they seek, it is obvious they won’t listen or understand what others are telling them. eg. How, When, Why the universe came to exist. The truly scientific mind looks for the ultimate causes if he wants to make any progress in knowing the truth, and if he wants to advance science in all of it’s endeavors. An open, unbiased, unprejudiced mind with a sincere desire to know the truth is an essential requirement, and I add, a humble, not an arrogant and self-righteous attitude which is very common to human nature.

 

[Oreoracle]

icamhif:

Do you consider that it is at least possible that a gap of knowledge has only a supernatural explanation?

I’m sure this has already more or less been said, but “explanation” has a specific meaning in the context of the scientific method. An explanation should offer a model which leads to testable predictions of phenomena. The explanation should postulate the minimum number of mechanisms needed to make this model possible.

For example, physicists discovered after centuries of trial and error that you need at the very least a force which acts at a distance to explain planetary motion, i.e., gravity. It turns out that this postulate has proven sufficient for answering most questions.

While it’s true that gravity is postulated rather than directly observed, the postulate is not arbitrary. Gravity itself is tied to mass, an observable, measurable property of matter. The more we understand about mass, the more we’ll understand about gravity. This allows for progress. If gravity were instead just taken to be a deity’s whim, it would be a dead-end as far as explanatory power is concerned. You couldn’t understand gravity without understanding the deity, and since the deity is effectively defined to be off-limits, we would be stuck.

Or do you implicitly trust that scientific (or otherwise secular) explanations will eventually fill in the gap?

Some atheists may assume this, but I would agree that there is no way to know a priori that science will answer all questions. A potential problem is that the effectiveness of the scientific method depends on the ability to ask the “right questions”–that is, to make useful hypotheses. Since the scientific method does not in itself instruct us on how this might be done, our progress could be halted if and when we run out of inspiration.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sure. Of course. If you have no idea how it works, then take it to the science lab AND the paranormal office. The first will give you a hypothesis for a natural answer and the other will give you one or more for a supernatural explanation.

Let’s say the science lab comes up with an hypothesis that effectively says: ‘We’re not exactly sure at the moment how it works, but here’s our current best shot at an explanation’, and the paranormal department says: ‘It’s magic’, which do you go with?

How long do you give the science guys before you tell them that there’s no more point in looking for an answer?

As I have continously said, when their hypothesis has no useful predictive potency. This is a form of evidence, or lack thereof.

 

[Bradski]

As much time as they want until they finally realize they are looking in the wrong places for the answers they seek, it is obvious they won’t listen or understand what others are telling them.

Until they finally realise they are looking in the wrong place? Good grief, we haven’t mentioned anything specific and you’ve already decided that the guys in the science lab are ‘looking in the wrong place’ and ‘won’t listen and won’t understand’. You’ve already made your mind up about the supernatural already. There’s no need to go to the science lab. You know the answer! What was it you said?

An open, unbiased, unprejudiced mind with a sincere desire to know the truth is an essential requirement, and I add, a humble, not an arrogant and self-righteous attitude which is very common to human nature.

As long as it’s your truth, apparently.

As I have continously said, when their hypothesis has no useful predictive potency. This is a form of evidence, or lack thereof.

Generally speaking (you will find some discrepancies in the definitions), a hypothesis is an explanation of why something happens, a theory will predict what will happen. You be sure to let me know what predictions one can make regarding the supernatural.

 

[St_Redemption]

The “God of the gaps” idea is very irresponsible of “theologians.” They always claim that since science doesn’t know something that there must be no scientific explanation and that therefore this proves the existence of God. What often happens, then, is that sometimes science will find an answer to the issue in question. And since “theologians” were claiming that the lack of an explanation was proof of God, what will happen is is that atheists will then throw this new knowledge of science back at them and say, “see, this just further proves the existence of you God wrong.”

And so it goes, and they begin to chalk up more “wins” and it makes the faith look bad. God of the gaps is a very irresponsible game for Christians to play, generally speaking. Gaps in knowledge can be discussed, as these issues should be discussed, and God may very well be a “God of the Gaps” in certain areas which we do not understand yet, but we should never count the fact that we don’t understand something as proof of God.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Generally speaking (you will find some discrepancies in the definitions), a hypothesis is an explanation of why something happens, a theory will predict what will happen. You be sure to let me know what predictions one can make regarding the supernatural.

Well, lets take a concrete example instead of fluffing around with abstractions and personal silos of self-limiting definitions.

Take the well reported and evidenced Garabandal phenomena.
Four children exhibiting impossibly synchronised communications (even when apart) with an apparition and much inexplicable phenomena.

Given the inability of science to offer any successful material explanations there I am willing to accept the intangible explanation of the Seers themselves (it was a heavenly being) which does give coherence to all that happened.

And it gave more than coherence, predicted events (eg the visible Communion) and the advance warning of future apparitions (by the apparition herself) were fairly successfully adhered to also.

Of course if one apriori cannot accept such a thing then one will deny the materially inexplicable nature of the phenomena themselves or the success of the predictions.

It then becomes a battle of what is more ludicrous - the “scientific” denials of the witnessed inexplicable phenomena … or the occult/hidden hypothesis used to relatively successfully make sense of the phemonena and even predict related future events or reoccurrences.

Sure, we may end up knowing very little about the true nature of the alleged occult cause - however its existence may be able to be inferred with high levels of probability. The more so if the existence of material causes and lack of their predictive ability re the phemonea is zero.

 

[Bradski]

Take the well reported and evidenced Garabandal phenomena.

Four children exhibiting impossibly synchronised communications (even when apart) with an apparition and much inexplicable phenomena.

Given the inability of science to offer any successful material explanations there I am willing to accept the intangible explanation of the Seers themselves (it was a heavenly being) which does give coherence to all that happened.

Gosh, a Catholic example. I would have preferred something that was less associated with your particular religion if you were going to suggest the possibility of the supernatural. Otherwise…someone could suggest that you might be biiased towards your own beliefs. Heaven forbid!

The scientific response to this is…you are an exceptionally gullible person. And that’s not meant to be insulting.

If you want to convince someone that the supernatural might exist, then try an example that you personally feel isn’t true. Play the Devil’s Advocate. Otherwise, stop wasting my time…

 

[ynotzap]

Gosh, a Catholic example. I would have preferred something that was less associated with your particular religion if you were going to suggest the possibility of the supernatural. Otherwise…someone could suggest that you might be biiased towards your own beliefs. Heaven forbid!

The scientific response to this is…you are an exceptionally gullible person. And that’s not meant to be insulting.

If you want to convince someone that the supernatural might exist, then try an example that you personally feel isn’t true. Play the Devil’s Advocate. Otherwise, stop wasting my time…

You can’t convince one against his will, you should know that within yourself, and you are doing pretty good at playing the devils advocate- and strangely enough you are wasting my time, and B.H’s too. Speaking about an individual with his mind made up, you are a prime example. To play the devil’s advocate, one has to know something about God, and try to discredit it, and what do you know about the devil- a supernatural truth, are you sincere with yourself, you appear contradictory, and what do you know about God?

 

[Bradski]

You can’t convince one against his will, you should know that within yourself…

If we’re talking about science then all you need is evidence to convince anyone. Just try to bear in mind that if you yourself believe the evidence, it doesn’t make it good evidence. A lot of people forget that.

Speaking about an individual with his mind made up, you are a prime example. To play the devil’s advocate, one has to know something about God, and try to discredit it, and what do you know about the devil- a supernatural truth, are you sincere with yourself, you appear contradictory, and what do you know about God?

That’s a difficult sentence to parse. But, yes, I have made my mind up. Based on the evidence I find most compelling (note the reference to evidence again). I am not in a state of doubt. If I were to play the Devil’s Advocate, that would mean my position would be to convince others of the existence of the supernatural, not to discredit God (not that that is even my position now). And please bear in mind that the supernatural does not necessarily include God.

And if I appear to be contradictory, then you might be able to point out where that happens. I do try to be consistent. Could you be specific?

And lastly, what do I know about God? Ah, I see that because I now describe myself as an atheist, you have assumed that I know nothing about Him.

 

[Aloysium]

If we’re talking about science then all you need is evidence to convince anyone. Just try to bear in mind that if you yourself believe the evidence, it doesn’t make it good evidence. A lot of people forget that. . . .

As you did when conversely, you failed to believe (Perhaps it was more a matter of not understanding.) the evidence of the miracle presented in the BMJ described above.

 

[Bradski]

As you did when conversely, you failed to believe (Perhaps it was more a matter of not understanding.) the evidence of the miracle presented in the BMJ described above.

BMJ? Sorry, what is that? If you are referring to the Garabandal episode, then I’m in good company in not believing it. Your own church hasn’t expressed any interest in verifying it either.