The God of the Gaps, One More Time
Victor Reppert repeatedly discusses the "God of the Gaps" in which many Christians have argued that if science cannot explain something then this is evidence or a pointer to God's handiwork in the world. But since modern science has explained numerous things without recourse to a supernatual explantion, like how babies are born, why people get ill, and why it rains, this whole reasoning is now problematic. Let me explain...
This whole discussion reminds me of what I wrote when summing up my case against Christianity here: In every case when it comes to the following reasons for adopting my control beliefs the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must continually retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or that what they believe is “not impossible.” However, the more that Christians must constantly retreat to what is "possible" rather than to what is “probable” in order to defend their faith, the more their faith is on shaky ground. For this is a tacit admission that instead of the evidence supporting what they believe, they are actually trying to explain the evidence away.
Robert M. Price echos this statement of mine when he says that for Christian apologists “the controlling presupposition seems to be, ‘If the traditional view cannot be absolutely debunked beyond the shadow of a doubt, if it still might possibly be true, then we are within our rights to continue to believe it.’”
Now let me try to explain how this applies to the god of the gaps reasoning. Many Christians claim that methodological naturalism (MN) has not closed all of the gaps, and since that’s so, they can still believe. According to them so long as there are gaps it hasn’t been shown God doesn’t exist. But the point is that MN has indeed closed numerous gaps because such a method has proven fruitful. Christians must admit that while MN is indeed fruitful it cannot or should not be used to explain the Biblical miracles or the origin of the universe itself. But when they take this tact they are already admitting the fruitfulness of MN which has had overwhelming success. They have to deny what seems to scientifically literate people undeniable, or at the very minimum, most probable. They must apply a double standard here, for while they accept MN in all other areas of their lives they deny it when it comes to the Bible. Why the double standard?
Other Christian theists faced with the onslaught of science and its method have changed the historic Christian view in which it was believed the gaps are evidence for God's handiwork. Now they are forced into claiming instead that even if the gaps were all closed it wouldn’t undercut their beliefs, since God is behind the whole ordered universe as the divine orderer. And while this is true if God exists, at the same time, as the gaps are closed there is less and less evidence to believe he does exist! If all of the gaps are closed, which is theoretically possible but not likely, would the theist then admit there is no evidence for God at all, or will she again switch tactics?
So Christian theists either have a double standard, or they have the we can’t beat ‘em join ‘em attitude towards MN. I consider both views to be an admission of the power of MN, and indicative that their only resort is retreating to what’s possible rather than to what’s probable.
Cheers.
16 comments:
If all of the gaps are closed, which is theoretically possible but not likely, would the theist then admit there is no evidence for God at all, or will she again switch tactics?
Nope. God merely allowed us to close all the gaps in order to test our faith. Just like he put fossils in the ground and made the universe to appear to be billions of years old. Only the true believers, those who need absolutely no evidence at all, will be worthy of his everlasting love.
If someone wants to believe in a god, I seriously doubt there is anything they can't come up with to justify their belief.
This is a very good post.
I am agnostic/weak atheist because of a vague sense that there SEEMS to be a cummulative awesomeness to everything that seems to suggest intelligence.
On the other hand, I have disproved the Bible to my own satisfaction, and all other revealed religion is likewise wrongheaded. So that is not an option.
So, I can relate to someone who says "yes, the gaps are closed - but it still smacks of intelligence" - but reason forbids accepting the Bible or the Quran as anything other than human inventions.
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
'Instead of the evidence supporting what they believe, they are actually trying to explain the evidence away.'
This applies also to inerrancy. It is the point of harmonising.
You don't have to harmonise things that are in harmony.
Harmonisation is a claim that , despite all appearances to the contrary, thing are in harmony.
But why are all appearances to the contrary?
>>>...Harmonisation is a claim that , despite all appearances to the contrary, things are in harmony....
I have a song I wrote called "Mysteries." In this song I express my SINCERE belief that in time all of my questions would be answered:
http://www.broadjam.com/transmit/transmit.asp?txygnbz=44830&chkldsxv1=332177&yhgbndsq=1
In fact, they were, but not with harmonization and resolution but rather with the realization that no, this thing does not work. When mystery gave way to knowledge, the end result was not resolution but rather disappointment.
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
Imperfection in each man is redundant. Though scientists provide probabilities; we cannot discount the fact that thay too are prone to be mistaken. Things that have seemed to be proven fact in the past have been revisited and disproved. Man, M.N. and scientists may come to what seems to be a complete closing of the gaps physically but the true spirit of GOD in a man's heart will never settle for such an utter disregard of the understanding of the NON-physical and of the unity amongst believers. Belief being a necessity for greater understaning and greater understanding leading to trust that ONE NEED not understand physical mysteries and moreover, trust that inner wisdom be relayed when REQUIRED. Justification, though not reqiured; can be found in those who believe that they FEEL in places not specifically allocated to the physical flesh, thereby rendering science irrelevent. Those who doubt will obviously be misled by humans of equal imperfect calliber until they see the perfection of physicality as GOD's doing. That is to say that without being able to believe in GOD, One will cling to whatever information is fed in it's stead. And it is Only the other equal imperfections(humans)that cause us to doubt our innate ability to FEEL GOD and cause a desire to analyze physical principalities rather than emotional realities. As there is opposition to all matter, I wonder; if they do discover an alternative opinion to the dawning of man's physical existence will studies then be reverted to the origin of spiritual existence without including GOD? When it is clearly documented that no men have lived without some form of GOD(whether sub-serviant or not) And while reason, to some may discredit the Bible's accuracy; there is also NO proof to support that it was NOT in fact devinely inspired and written out in different forms for those interested and willing to believe. To this day humans everywhere are a testament to uncultivated and otherwise inexplicable behaviourial ability. Not posing questions signifies complete understanding. Being satisfied with the answers provided denotes no need to seek out an alternate truth. If GOD is the truth and the source of our emotional being(WHICH HE HAPPENS TO BE FOR ME) than surely you can fathom his desire for you to bring your questions to HIM rather than your fellow man. Though my fellow man would like me to justify my faith it is for MY own salvation and sanity that I trust the Lord's answers to my toughest questions;...to which the answers are QUITE plausible and Quite opposite to the solutions society as a whole offers
Jennifer,
It seems to me that any one of any faith could have written your post. So why the many faiths if only one spirit of god?
Hey Jennifer, thanks for expanding on my previous post. It was perfect!
Yes indeed John. A couple years ago I wrote a piece which pointed out a problem with the Gog argument, in its Dog incarnation (Designer of the Gaps):
What surprises me about the promoters of ID is that they seem oblivious to the trend: the gaps left over for their Designer to hide in keep getting smaller. If I were an IDer, I’d be a mite disconcerted about the squeezing involved. Used to be room behind every raincloud, and now He (or She, or It) has to duck out of sight under some missing molecular scaffolding. Assuming preservation of supernatural mass, the spiritual pressure must be getting tremendous. No wonder the Designer is breaking out all over…
John says: "Many Christians claim that methodological naturalism (MN) has not closed all of the gaps, and since that’s so, they can still believe."
I don't mind them clinging to belief. I mind them insisting it is the only right way. I mind them insisting it makes rational sense when there are literally millions of separate versions as each intelligent Christian make up their version to explain away the parts they have admitted don't make sense. I mind them thinking it makes logical sense that their Bible contains so many contradictions and lies. I mind them calling it science and trying to put it into school curriculums. I mind them forcing me to participate by making every religious holiday a bold public display. I mind them getting a moment of silence into my kids' school day and denying it is school prayer thinly disguised. I mind them judging me when they are the ones defying intelligence and logic. I mind them claiming the higher moral ground when so much ill has been done and continues to be done in the name of their religions. I mind them walking off my prairie tour with their school kids when I mention evolution. I mind them trying to tell kids they are inherently flawed and evil. I mind them discriminating and oppressing women and gays in the name of it. They can beleive what they want as long as they keep it to themselves.
Imperfection in each man is redundant. Though scientists provide probabilities; we cannot discount the fact that thay too are prone to be mistaken. Things that have seemed to be proven fact in the past have been revisited and disproved.
And how do you know they are disproven? Revealed knowledge? The Spirit of the LORD? No, silly, with science. It is self-checking.
Man, M.N. and scientists may come to what seems to be a complete closing of the gaps physically but the true spirit of GOD in a man's heart will never settle for such an utter disregard of the understanding of the NON-physical and of the unity amongst believers.
First of all, you are begging the question by assuming that there is a true spirit of GOD in a person's heart. Secondly, if by non-physical you mean the mental, then you are disregarding huge leaps being made in psychology/neurology/neuropharmacology and are simply leaning on the shaky God-of-the-gaps in psychological studies. If by non-physical you mean the spiritual, there is no evidence that it exists.
Belief being a necessity for greater understaning and greater understanding leading to trust that ONE NEED not understand physical mysteries and moreover, trust that inner wisdom be relayed when REQUIRED.
You just listed excellent reasons for anyone who values knowledge to forever rail against religion. You expect people in general to be satisfied with ignorance, and simply believe that some external force will relay wisdom when they need it. Did God all but eliminate polio, or did Salk and Sabin? Are you saying that the millions of people who suffered from polio before Salk and Sabin did not NEED the knowledge, so GOD did not reveal it? Then your GOD is a dick.
Justification, though not reqiured; can be found in those who believe that they FEEL in places not specifically allocated to the physical flesh, thereby rendering science irrelevent.
Justification is required, by definition, for rational belief. You wanna embrace irrationality, fine, but I'm here to make sure you advertise that fact.
And did you seriously argue that you can justify a truth-claim based on a feeling? Wait, sorry, I misrepresent you--based on a belief in a feeling!?! And that this beleif in a feeling somehow renders science irrelevant!?! And bruce, you find this convincing? I weep for the state of education in the US.
That is to say that without being able to believe in GOD, One will cling to whatever information is fed in it's stead.
Wow. Talk about the pot calling the polar bear black. I guess that why us scientists, who must embrace methodological naturalism regardless of personal beliefs, have never been able to set aside any hair-brained guess we come across, but believe them all whole-heartedly.
Honestly, jennifer, can even you believe in such a silly characterization of atheists that is so contrary to observable fact? Please note that the majority of atheists got that way by setting aside the god(s) that they were told existed. Were you correct, there is no way an atheist could remain so in any country with an advertising religion. Yet here we are.
As there is opposition to all matter, I wonder; if they do discover an alternative opinion to the dawning of man's physical existence will studies then be reverted to the origin of spiritual existence without including GOD?
What do you mean by "as there is opposition to all matter"? And studies have already began as to the origin of spirituality. I present to you the God helmet. This is only the most spectacular (and controversial) of many recent studies into the neurology of spirituality. If you wish to hold on to spirituality as you ultimate bulwark against the advances of godless science, you should realize that your lifeboat is rapidly taking on water.
When it is clearly documented that no men have lived without some form of GOD(whether sub-serviant or not)
Lie. From ignorance, I imagine, but completely false regardless. I have met many people who were born atheists, and have lived until now as atheists. History has documented many of the same.
And while reason, to some may discredit the Bible's accuracy; there is also NO proof to support that it was NOT in fact devinely inspired and written out in different forms for those interested and willing to believe.
And there is no proof to support that The Silmarillion was NOT in fact devinely [sic] inspired. All hail the Ainur!
You know the principle of the burden of proof, even if you refuse to apply it in your pet cases. It is instinct in almost all of us, simply because we would be paralyzed if not for it. The person making the positive claim of influence has the burden to justify the claim. You claim God influenced the authorship of the Bible. I do not have the burden to demonstrate He did not, no more than you have the burden to demonstrate that God did not inspire Tolkien.
To this day humans everywhere are a testament to uncultivated and otherwise inexplicable behaviourial ability.
Mmmmm, God of the gaps again. "Human behavior is inexplicable without God (and not just any God, but God Model #13572)." Haven't I heard this before, about contagious disease, weather, agriculture, mental illness, etc. Same dance, different tune. Or, in the words of one of the great modern Christian thinkers, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again."
Being satisfied with the answers provided denotes no need to seek out an alternate truth.
Or a satisfaction with ignorance. Religion has always offered easily-digested answers to difficult, complex problems. The rub is that the answers are never true, just easily-digested. You keep your pat lies, I'll stick with my never-ending search for truth, thank you very much.
If GOD is the truth and the source of our emotional being(WHICH HE HAPPENS TO BE FOR ME) than surely you can fathom his desire for you to bring your questions to HIM rather than your fellow man.
Oh, is THAT what you think? For pneumonia, hospital or faith-healer? For bulding bridges, engineer or oracle? For weather, meteorologist or medicine man? For milk, prayer or pasteurization? I'll give you Elijah's challenge (1 Kings 18). We'll build a pyre. You may use whatsoever entreaties and sacrifices to your God you so desire to light that fire. I will rely upon my butane torch. Fortunately for you, I am not so bloodthirsty as your God; when I win, I will not have you executed.
Though my fellow man would like me to justify my faith it is for MY own salvation and sanity that I trust the Lord's answers to my toughest questions;...to which the answers are QUITE plausible and Quite opposite to the solutions society as a whole offers
Which "toughest questions"? What answers? How do you judge them to be plausible, if not by empiricism (i.e. science)? And if they are plausible by empiricism, you can come by them without the need for God.
The moment I see jennifer driving down the street in a car built by revealed knowledge, or see a bridge held up by revealed knowledge, or any other such demonstration of the actual truth behind revealed knowledge, I will take such arguments seriously. Unfortunately for you, the track record of revealed knowledge has been universally bad. You are restricting your revealed knowledge to smaller and smaller areanas because you KNOW this to be true; do you still believe in flat earth, as was thought to be revealed knowledge from the Bible? Geocentrism? Demons as the cause of disease and mental illness? Witches as the cause of mishaps? No, you methodically squeeze your God into a rapidly shrinking box.
In a few generations we will be hearing about God as the uncertainty in the Sommerfeld fine-structure constant. And I will sit in my rocking chair, sip my lemonade, and chuckle about the days of a grander God.
Now, now, shygetz- don't forget, we atheists have our own revealed truths.
shygetz,
I think bruce was referencing his previous post's prediction...which Jennifer stepped right in to fulfill.
Talk about the pot calling the polar bear black.
Which they're not...except when they are.
(That comment struck me funny in a different way only because of what I knew about their skin.)
As a research scientist myself, I always appreciate your responses/rebuttals. Your incisive, direct, and concise prose makes me...well, jealous. Anyway, it is a pleasure to read your material.
Jennifer says "When it is clearly documented that no men have lived without some form of GOD(whether sub-serviant or not)"
The idea of one central God or even of Gods more powerful than us is NOT as common as we might think. Many religions attributed spirits to people and to all other things, some only to living things, some to all things living and non-living and these spirit-based religions held those things on a equal par to us, not as higher gods in any way. Communication was attempted to negotiate with them, much as communication to negotiate with other peoples for things desired. These 'religions' generally did not force themselves onto all people they encountered, perhaps because of the lack of arrogance about a 'higher power' and so did not spread do dominate. If looked at in terms of numbers of different 'religions' or beleif systems, i am guessing that less beleived in a higher power sort of god than beleived in a more general sprirituality.
I have no problem with a "moment of silence" in public schools, even if it is to give their adherants time to pray quietly. I only have a problem when they try to make those who have no desire to pray pray. That is to say, when they make little Johnny stand out to be shunned.
bruce,
My apologies for not properly connecting the dots. I withdraw my statement regarding your credulity.
Zilch,
Two thumbs up on the link. that was funny.
Post a Comment