S
snarflemike
Guest
Is this the devastating defeater that some atheists seem to think it is?
- Status
R
runningdude
Guest
It is a straw man portrayal of Christian beliefs, where Christian’s believe in God because there are “gaps” in the current understanding of the world. As a really bad example, “science does not understand how gravity works, therefore God must have made this a mysterious, unexplainable phenomenon to prove his existence”.
A better example would be people who live in fear of solid evidence being uncovered of Jesus’ non-existence, or evidence of him being married, contradicting scripture.
Of course, most Christians with a mature faith believe God is the source of all that is created and observed, so the “God of the Gaps” theory of faith is absurd.
A better example would be people who live in fear of solid evidence being uncovered of Jesus’ non-existence, or evidence of him being married, contradicting scripture.
Of course, most Christians with a mature faith believe God is the source of all that is created and observed, so the “God of the Gaps” theory of faith is absurd.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
How is it a strawman of Christian beliefs? The first people to utilize the phrase were Christians themselves!
The point is that certain arguments for theism are fallacious and nonsensical… that is to say, they rely on an argument from ignorance.
“I don’t know how that [e.g. lightning, rain, the creation of the universe, etc.] happened. Therefore, God.” is not an effective argument for God’s existence.
So the God of the Gap is helpful thing, really.
Anything that helps us reason better is quite welcome!
S
snarflemike
Guest
Therefore, God what? Therefore God exists? Or therefore God has created a miracle (manipulating nature outside of the laws of nature)? Or what?
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
There’s really 2 parts:
Therefore, God did it.
Therefore, God exists.
Essentially the idea is “whenever we don’t understand something, let’s plug God into the equation.”
S
snarflemike
Guest
So the argument is that if lightning happens because of potential build-up that results in a large discharge through the atmosphere, God doesn’t exist?
C
ccmnxc
Guest
I think one has to be careful in an argument that shoots for the existence of God.
For example:
- The universe hasn’t existed forever
- The universe was created
- The thing that created the universe was God.
- The universe hasn’t existed forever
- The universe was created (from P1)
a. Prior to the creation of the universe, there was no time, space or matter
b. That means the creator of the universe was/is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.
c. Those qualities fit with God but not particularly well with most if not all naturalistic explanations. - Therefore, the thing that created the universe was God.
In this case, we accept the conclusion’s answer more plausible than its negation (the thing that created the universe was not God).
I happen to reject most accusations of God of the gaps simply because the atheist provides no other possible explanation. God provides adequate explanatory power and scope, but since it is not a naturalistic explanation, many times, the atheist will rule God out a priori. Now if they offer a plausible alternative that I cannot rebut, then I think their objection stands.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
No. Let’s back up a minute.
The God of the Gaps is not an argument against God per se, It’s simply meant to describe fallacious arguments for God.
L
Love4All
Guest
In my experience, it is far easier to expose the fallacy here than it is to convince those who use this that it is a fallacy. “God-o’-the-gaps” relies on two untenable assumptions. First, that God in fact does not in fact directly will every real event in the universe. Thus the idea is advanced that some event, e.g. the boiling of water, happens because of the “laws of physics,” while another event, e.g. the beginning of life on Earth, is not yet explained fully by science and therefore, “Goddidit.” The implication is that it used to be that God did the boiling of water until we understood the change of state via the application of heat, and now we no longer need God for that. The reality is that God boils the water just as surely as God created life. God does not recede into the “gaps” in our understanding, rather, He does everything including what we do (somewhat) understand.
The second fallacy is that, in the first place, man invented God in order to fill in the blanks of his understanding or as a placeholder for what he did not understand. They’ve been teaching schoolchildren for a while now that ancient humans attributed the rain to a rain god and the lightning to a lightning god and the thunder to a thunder god, and that is, according to their story, the origin of all theistic belief — i.e., man’s ignorance of the true causes of things. You may point out to them until you’re blue in the face that that isn’t why we believe in God, but to no avail.
Where the God-o’-the-gaps idea becomes dangerous is when it is used to attack the Cosmological Argument. Stephen Hawking has attempted to do this with his “no boundary proposal” for the beginning of time and space. While there are many other arguments for the existence of God, there is none in natural theology to take the place of the Cosmological Argument. Indeed, it is even invoked in Scripture, thus,
Wisdom 13
1
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;
2
But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.
3
Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them.
4
Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them.
5
For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen.
E
edwest2
Guest
According to scientific accounts, early humans who did not understand the source of lightning, for example, might attribute it to some god/gods, not necessarily the Christian God. Take ball lightning. Only one credible photograph exists of the phenomenon but scientists still don’t understand the mechanism that causes it to form.
God of the gaps, as often mentioned here, is used as a negative comment by some when discussing natural events and claims that some people believe God aided the event or caused it. In other words, knowledge of what God did fills any “gaps” in scientific knowledge. The Church has a long list of miracles, including what Jesus did in the Bible, that makes certain claims credible. God was involved in Creation, but since some deny him on “scientific” grounds, they don’t realize their error and there is no current way to study God or supernatural events. So, claiming that science is the only way of knowing the truth allows some to make two errors: “God/gods were never involved in this event or process, according to science.” and 2) They have no way of knowing that since science does not study God or His work.
Hope this helps,
Ed
God of the gaps, as often mentioned here, is used as a negative comment by some when discussing natural events and claims that some people believe God aided the event or caused it. In other words, knowledge of what God did fills any “gaps” in scientific knowledge. The Church has a long list of miracles, including what Jesus did in the Bible, that makes certain claims credible. God was involved in Creation, but since some deny him on “scientific” grounds, they don’t realize their error and there is no current way to study God or supernatural events. So, claiming that science is the only way of knowing the truth allows some to make two errors: “God/gods were never involved in this event or process, according to science.” and 2) They have no way of knowing that since science does not study God or His work.
Hope this helps,
Ed
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
“God of the gaps” is what atheists exclaim when you fill the gap that is created after God is removed from the equation.
P
polytropos
Guest
It may not be logical to look at [unexplained phenomenon] and conclude that God was responsible. That doesn’t mean it is logical to look at [unexplained phenomenon] and conclude that God was not responsible, either.
Besides the logical unsoundness of making a claim like this, it is also problematic in the respect that something currently unknown may not be always unknown. God has been invoked to explain things in the past that were then explained alternatively in terms of natural mechanisms. Because it was previously thought to be God, this then turns people away from God. Making reasonable claims about God’s role in natural phenomena is needed so that the position is not later invalidated.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Science is discovering more and more ‘‘gaps’’.
It was supposed to be filling the gaps.
Everytime science climbs to a higher peak of discovery, in search of answers for what lies over the horizon, it discovers a new horizon even more distant than the last one it discovered.
Microscopes and telescopes of increasing power are raising more questions than they answer.
It was supposed to be filling the gaps.
Everytime science climbs to a higher peak of discovery, in search of answers for what lies over the horizon, it discovers a new horizon even more distant than the last one it discovered.
Microscopes and telescopes of increasing power are raising more questions than they answer.
P
polytropos
Guest
They do answer questions, though. And though science provides more questions, it will go on to answer many of those questions that it brings up. We cannot predict which of those questions will be answered in the future, so to argue that they are God (according to a “God of the Gaps” line of thought) is going to lessen the perceived credibility of religion down the road.
S
snarflemike
Guest
What would be an example of a physical event or mechanism today that would fit in with the God of the Gaps pattern? That is, what would be a modern example of lightning and thunder?
J
J_Peterson
Guest
The big bang. We don’t know what started the big bang. People fill that gap with God, even though there may be a scientifically explainable material cause for it all.
L
Love4All
Guest
Abiogenesis.
L
Love4All
Guest
That is actually impossible, logically contradictory. An infinite causal chain is incoherent, and self-causation is incoherent. The only remaining alternative is an uncaused Cause.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
There’s no contradiction in postualting that the universe is part of an infinite chain of events. In fact our universe could be causing lots of other universes as we speak. An infinite chain going back in time is not impossible, I think that’s called a per accident series. You are thinking of a per se series ( I hope I’m not mangling the terminology) which can’t go back into infinity.
ETA: The important thing is to aknowlege that God is the cause of the existence of all that is. How He pulled it off isn’t all that important to our faith in my opinion.
Z
zro_x
Guest
I’ve heard Christians bring up all sorts of examples for this. “Science can not explain love, beauty, reason, the universe, the origin of life, free will, morality… therefore, God must be the only explanation.” The God of the Gaps fallacy is not restriced to physical events.
Of course, there is also the opposite fallacy, Science of the Gaps, which holds that Science can eventually find an explanation for everything. The way I see it, just about all of these examples are so far unexplained, or at least the explanation is quite complex, and there is no general consensus on whether the explanations are ultimately natural or supernatural. We just don’t know.
- Status