What is the Problem with "God of the Gaps?"
DagoodS recently wrote on this question. Here is his conclusion:
Christians claim we are limiting our options by not looking for supernatural resolutions. Er…so what? Don’t we all do that? Don’t we all limit our options by removing solutions we do not think exist or think so unlikely as to not be worthy of consideration?
With me, many Christians limit their options by removing homeopathy from their toolbox. They go to an M.D. with me. They remove vaccine-deniers. They remove alien interventions and abductions. They remove ESP, new age candles, horoscopes, feng shui, bad karma, dowsing, magnetic bracelets, bag bomb, and hosts of other crazy possibilities from their solutions.
For the same reasons I remove the tool labeled “God.” Now the Christian gets excited: “Wait a minute—you are limiting possibilities.” Yep.
Why should this be a surprise? Remember—The Christian doesn’t like God-of-the-Gaps. The Christian doesn’t like inserting “supernatural” when a natural solution is not currently known. If they find such a solution repulsive…who am I to argue with ‘em?
Link
20 comments:
i agree with what you stated here, christians are the same way with other religions.
They believe in all the miracles and revelations claimed in the Bible, but completely deny all the claims of other religions.
They have no problem limiting the possibilities in this way, yet they cry out against people not being open to the Bible.
My big problem is that the God of the Gaps is a label, not an explanation.
And, "The thing that explains this gap might be the same thing that explains that gap" is a blind guess.
What's a bag bomb? Did he mean bag balm? What's so wrong with bag balm? Just curious. Everything else is quotable.
Bag balm has cured more ills than prayer ever did!
Gaps exists in all worldviews. Naturalism has major gaps in the fossil record, in the genome, in their understanding of the cause of the universe, in our understanding of the cause of life.
Thousands upon thousands of Christians will testify to the fact that God has answered prayer. Faith in Jesus does provide knowledge of the love of God. The fact that mankind appears to have a spirit being made in the image of God.
The question is not whether God exist; rather, it is really a question of who this God is. Atheism believe in God and simply call Him nature; however, nature came into existence and we also know that nature cannot cause itself since it at one time did not exist.
The evidence for a mind being the cause, source, design and sustaining power of the universe is not just a possibility. It really is the only rational option.
God Bless..
ZDENNY:
You said (faith in jesus does provide knowledge of the love of God)
Well..faith and knowledge are two different things!
And love is something that consists in being felt, not known!
And if nature cannot cause itself....then i have to say that God cannot cause Himself either!
I know this is an old topic but it still stands. Its as easy to believe nature to be naturally caused as it is to believe God to be self caused!
Especially when nature can be observed and God cannot!
Gaps exists in all worldviews. Naturalism has major gaps in the fossil record, in the genome, in their understanding of the cause of the universe, in our understanding of the cause of life.
There's a huge difference. A naturalist will see those gaps and think "here's something we don't currently understand - I'd like to spend time exploring this and seeing if we can figure out what's going on here."
A "god of the gaps" style Christian will exclaim "God Did It! Stop trying to find another answer" and stick his fingers in his ears screaming "lalalalalala I can't hear you" as scientists fill in that gap with more information and more exploration.
The naturalist approach found the germ theory of disease, while the god of the gaps approach was still blaming witches for getting children sick. The naturalist approach found moons orbiting Jupiter, while the god of the gaps approach imprisoned the man who found those moons. The naturalist approach is currently mapping the human genome, while the god of the gaps approach is telling us that men should not meddle in these kinds of things.
Which "worldview" has really done good things for this world, and which one has just enriched a number of con men with giant churches all over the world? Which "worldview" actually brings real, tangible benefits to the world, and which one tells people to suffer now and wait for benefits until after they're dead?
Why don't you try living for a few years without the benefits that the "naturalist worldview" has brought to your life, ZDenny? You can start by unplugging that computer, because no "god of the gaps" approach would ever have arrived at the theories of electromagnetism that form the backbone of its operation, let alone the computational theory that the atheist (and gay, I might add) Alan Turing came up with to create the "magic box" that you're spewing your ignorance through on a daily basis.
To Jer.
Well spoken! i lack the patients for as deep of an explaination as you, but well put!
The whole concept of "God of the gaps" is evasive to theistic implication in scientific evidence which is falsifiable.
Until we address evidence for agnostic theism (such as Information always comes from Intelligence), Code comes from a Code Maker, messages come from Authors (mRNA), complex mechanical "working" systems do not arise (especially when the complex information is schematic in nature), and IF-THEN algorithmic programming is always programmed by a Creator)...
will will not be addressing scientific evidence which is falsifiable.
All claims that this is an appeal to "ignorance" are actually a projection of ignorance regarding several factors. 1. theistic implication is NOT claiming we don't know the answer. We clearly know that information comes from Intelligence...so we DO know the answer. 2. It would only be an appeal to ignorance if you had a limited view of science which REQUIRED circular reasoning where all quote unquote "naturalistic observations and assumptions are met/answered by naturalistic conclusions. If you eliminate "theistic implication" as being a possible answer when it is clearly the correct answer THEN it will not fit your limited view and you will incorrectly claim that it is an appeal to ignorance.
3. It is incorrectly defining what you see as empirical observation as naturalism/materialism without understanding that "what you see" may be the product of supernatural sustaining order and power which keeps the so called "natural" in its operational state/order.
breck
you entire post begs the question.
To Breckmin.
I understand what your saying here, but the age old question still comes in!
If everything you said here applies to this world and the universe, then why doesn't your message also apply to God?
If everything code needs a code maker, and there is intelligence behind everything, then why is God exempt from the same rules you state?
If you are claiming that God needs no creator, then its just as easy to believe the universe needs no creator!
"If everything you said here applies to this world and the universe, then why doesn't your message also apply to God?"
Uncaused cause logically stops
infinite regression. God is NOT
finite complexity. He is NOT information. He is NOT programming. Spiritual intelligence is NOT based on a "brain."
"If everything code needs a code maker, and there is intelligence behind everything, then why is God exempt from the same rules you state?"
(written earlier)
Dawkins fails to understand that God is not "finite complexity." Neither is God just "information."
Neither is God just a complex mechanical system since God is NOT a system. Neither is God somehow a program (or whoever programmed "god" - THEY would be God).
There is NO infinite regress here and it is pure ignorance of the premises NOT to see this.
God Exists as the Infinite Creator. We sometimes might say "Infinite Personal Existence" or "Infinite Spiritual Existence" or "Infinite Conscious Existence."
All of these English expressions actually defame God and it is better
to just say "Infinite Creator" Who by very definition is the Uncaused Cause. To ask "Where did God come from?" Is a pseudo question. A question with a false assumption, because God is NOT a physical creation. He is the atemporal (omni-time (not outside of time)transcendent Creator who by very logic of Infinite Existence would have never had a "beginning."
Finite matter is not infinite. It had a beginning.
"If you are claiming that God needs no creator, then its just as easy to believe the universe needs no creator!"
FTR, I don't believe 3 dimensional existence needed to be created. I believe it was non-effectual until the creation of finite existence. Question everything.
Special pleading allows for justification.
The logical justification is the difference between finite existence and Infinite Existence. God is the Only One Who is infinite.
Justification for other special pleadings could be as simple as understanding that the Creator is the LawGiver and Owns everything in the universe He created.
It is NOT a fallacy to have special pleading when everyone else is finite and God is Infinite.
Question everything.
To Breckman.
Well i would have to say that as far as humans understand conscious, is always linked to a mind, and a mind is always linked to a physical brain!
There is know reason to believe that a conscious can exist apart from a physical brain. Or at least physical matter.
Take someone with alzhiemers for example: Their minds and consciousness is effected by their condition aswell as other brain deseases or truama's.
These people cant even remember who they are or family members or where they live at times.
This happens to their conscious brian while they are still alive!
So there is no reason to believe their conscious will/or can exist after the brain is dead and gone, (directing this towards spiritual consciousness as you stated of God.)
I appreciate the length you went to in your discription, but everything you stated, you stated as fact! and facts are not facts unless they are proven, and i dont see how you or anyone else can say they know for a fact what you said is true....?
Actually, your description of God falls along the lines of the incomprehensible God that christians love to attribute , but given that factor, christians themselves dont even know what it is they actually believe in!
To Breckman.
I will say that im an agnostic more then anything, im not a full out athiest, i dont rule out the possibility of a creator.
I just dont believe the Bible is the inerrent, infallible word of God!
And i think there is monumentious evidence that it is not!
But as i posted to someone else before, lets say for arguments sake that the world is a creation, that it was created.
What would that really prove though????
I can say what it would not prove-it would not prove that the world was created by one creator rather then a multitude of creators!
It would not prove that this being/beings created the entire universe instead of being a product of it themselves.
It also doesn't prove that even if there is a being/beings who have the power to create a world, that they would be all powerful, all knowing, onmibenevolent or eternal or self caused!
I just dont see any evidence for christains to make the factual claims they make!
breck
Everything you state is still question begging.
"And if nature cannot cause itself....then i have to say that God cannot cause Himself either!"
The clear difference is that objects in nature are finite and move and experience time...God as an atemporal/Infinite/Trascendent Existence does not "move." He is everywhere.
Second, God doesn't 'cause' Himself like you are asserting the universe would somehow 'cause' nature to exist. What you have are apples and oranges when you talk about finite existence being compared to infinite existence.
We can assert an infinite 3 dimensional spatial existence with respect to the universe that would not need to be created...but that does NOT explain "nature."
I believe that 3 dimensional spatial existence is clearly infinite...that is because God is infinite and we (or all finite existence) possibly come into infinite 3 dimensional existence at creation.
Question and see the logical differences.
"But as i posted to someone else before, lets say for arguments sake that the world is a creation, that it was created.
What would that really prove though????
I can say what it would not prove-it would not prove that the world was created by one creator rather then a multitude of creators!"
The first step in the progression is the scientific evidence which leads us to agnostic atheism. From this point (once we become logical theists)then we can look at specifics regarding "what it would take to be the Creator" to conclude that the Creator is infinite.
If the Creator is infinite, then monotheism is the logical choice.
The next step in the progression of building solid foundations and accumulative case argument is to look at historical evidence and comparative religions to see which Monotheistic Creator is clearly the logical Candidate for being (existing as) the One Infinite Creator.
Yes, I agree I have not provided evidence in this thread.
Breckman.
Well i agree that if there is a creator and he is infinite, then monotheism is the logical choice, but as i posted before, how does one know anything in regards to that creator such as-infinite-omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent-...etc
These are christian claims which obviously stem from the bible.
Given the lack of evidence for such claims is why it must be taken on faith rather then logic!
You said something in regard to the christian God being the logical choice over other religions?
I've not found very much logic, reason, or even sensible concepts throughout the Bible, but to each their own!
Let me ask you a question breckmen- how does your logic deal with the amount of contradiction, and inconsistency in the Bible?
Breckman.
As far as history goes, what has christianity really produced as evidence for its truthfulness rather then just maybe its appeal to some?
Christianity was spread by the sword and torture rack most of the time, the Inquisition, crusades, and wars against pagans and other christians sects!
Today, i find that the church appeals to alot of people who want the feeling of belonging somewhere, the feeling of being loved by the all powerful creator Himself! who has a plan for your life. The feeling of being part of the church family!
Not that these things are wrong as far as morals, but wrong as far as reasonable truths!
Post a Comment