There is a tendency, even in this forum, to attribute anything science cannot at this moment explain to supernatural forces. Historically people explained illness and weather to supernatural forces, science closed those gaps.
"Defining God-of-the-Gaps
God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain. The assumption is that if science cannot explain how something happened, then God must be the explanation. But the danger of using a God-of-the-gaps argument for the action or existence of God is that it lacks the foresight of future scientific discoveries. With the continuing advancement of science, God-of-the-gaps explanations often get replaced by natural mechanisms. Therefore, when such arguments are used as apologetic tools, scientific research can unnecessarily be placed at odds with belief in God.1 The recent Intelligent Design (ID) movement highlights this problem. Certain ID arguments, like the irreducible complexity of the human eye or the bacterial flagellum, are rapidly being undercut by new scientific discoveries.
Illustrating God-of-the-Gaps
The familiar story of Isaac Newton and Pierre Simon de Laplace is a classic example of the God-of-the-gaps argument. Newton devised a mathematical equation for the force of gravity that he used to explain and predict the motions of planets with outstanding accuracy. With pencil and paper, the orbit of the planets around the sun could be calculated with great precision. But planets also have gravitational interactions with each other, not just with the sun. For example, when the Earth passes Mars in its orbit around the sun, there is a small but significant gravitational interaction between Mars and Earth. Because these tiny interplanetary interactions occur often — several times per year in many cases — Newton suspected that these gravitational perturbations would accumulate and slowly disrupt the magnificent order of the solar system. To counteract these and other disruptive forces, Newton suggested that God must necessarily intervene occasionally to tune up the solar system and restore the order. Thus, God's periodic special actions were needed to account for the ongoing stability of the solar system.
Newton also thought that God was necessary to explain how the planets all happen to be traveling around the sun in the same direction and in the same plane. His theory of gravity was entirely compatible with planetary motions in any direction and with orbits tilted at any angle to the sun. But this is not what we find. The planets travel in the same direction, and almost all of their orbits are in the same plane. The planets move around the sun like runners on a track: very orderly. Newton thought only God could have set things up so elegantly:
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
15 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
God in the gaps is the philosophy of ignorance. Believers have a hard time accepting that some things we don't know yet and some things we will never know. Saying it is therefore proof of a god is saying we should stop looking. Nonsense.
Mitch07102
Level 8
July 9, 2018
0
Just because we don't fully know or understand something doesn't mean that their isn't a rational explanation. Humans can't stand not knowing so some tend to make up they're own explanation.
Scott96564
Level 4
July 9, 2018
1
I don't mind supernatural explanations. To me they fill the gap until we have a scientific explanation. For example, there is still no understanding of what happens inside black holes. There are so many unanswered questions.
Ellatynemouth
Level 8
July 9, 2018
0
I'm coming from an agnostic place. I prefer a scientific answer every time. But I'm redefining 'supernatural' to mean something we don't understand or can't comprehend.
Not to you or doesn't. But I'm allowed to.
"There is a tendency, even in this forum, to attribute anything science cannot at this moment explain to supernatural forces."
This is not a true statement regarding AG members. There are a few outliers, but by and large, that is not at all common in this forum.
BlueWave
Level 8
July 9, 2018
5
I didn't say it was common.
@BlueWave I have found it useful to include the definition of the word. in this case tendency: "an inclination toward a particular characteristic or type of behavior". Inclination: a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity. Then replace the definition with the author's original statement.
so by substituting the definition we are left with:
"There is an inclination towards the behaviour of even in this forum, to attribute anything science cannot at this moment explain to supernatural forces." Your point stands sound.
It's just an argument from ignorance.
Piece2YourPuzzle
Level 8
July 9, 2018
1
This is the first I've heard of this "God-of-the-Gaps" you speak of.
Interesting, and I can see how it has been true in many cases, certainly in the past. God was a huge part of society and might also have been an easy way out.
I suspect, though, that it's not an acceptable answer or explanation now.
Not that I do a lot of scientific research, (though I was a research assistant for some time) I've never used god to fill in any gaps. If I (or our team) didn't know how to explain something, we simply stated that we didn't know, and looked into it further. We may not have found the answer, but we knew for certain there was one, and it wasn't "god".
Perhaps as a lark, we would say "Magic", but it was a joke and we all knew it was a joke.
Never once did any of us ever say, in a non-sarcastic manner "it's like that because God make it that way".
scurry
Level 9
July 9, 2018
0
I haven't noticed that here, and I'm on here way to fucking much!
Sticks48
Level 9
July 9, 2018
3
Such blathering is rarely displayed on these pages but sadly, there are a few (I've run into only three people) that assert this position. In all those cases, those with such assertions have demonstrated themselves to be superstitionalists who value faith (belief without evidence) equal or above facts that can be demonstrated. Those, like a sick and infected bird with cognative issues hobbling across your lawn, I have found it easiest to avoid contact with their kinds then to gather it in a box and toss it into the trash can.
I was fortunate that I was brought up in a household, and school where there was not real mention of god, or religion. I was taught at an early age the value of using the Scientific method for learning anything.
For the most part that was apparent in the way my classes went from Math, to History, to Chemistry, and every thing in between. They didn't just give us a book, told to read a chapter, memorize it then take a test one it. That I believe is probably the worst way to teach someone.
Instead, they would give us a topic, or a problem to solve, to do the experiments to get our own findings. then present them. Which to me was the best way I could think of to get children to learn, to actually go and test, or research for ourselves. Even if we were wrong in our findings, there was the experiencing of learning from ours or others. Even better, we learned to question everything, never assume.
I don't know how or why most school systems don't do that any more, but it is very frustrating to see the decline in many people that can not even comprehend critical thinking.
And with this being the so called 'information age'.I see it get mis-used way too much.
With the ability to have virtually learn every thing there is to learn with a few clicks of a mouse.
But instead, way too many would rather just post a picture af a cat that says something funny on facebook, and then wait for the 50 'likes' that follow.
Even worse, a lot of times I will see people not having a sense of critical thinking will give the same weight to a paper written by someone with a Doctorate, as they would from some conspiracy theory nut job living in their moms basement.
Sorry for the long rant, this topic just strikes a sore nerve with me.
TristanNuvo
Level 8
July 9, 2018
2
Nice rant Tristan. For me you are totally correct. The opportunity for learning has never.been so open. As an example this morning I have just woken up snd read an abstract about clinical trials onHomeopathy from 1989, an article about proof of invest between 18th Dynasty Egyptian royal families and Gareth Southgates comments on Englsnd's semi final against Croatia. And as yoy say there seems to be a preponderance of cats and last nights cake discussed on social media. We are at a point in our culture that knowledge is available even for the armchair scientist. The Alexandrian Library has been rebuilt! If only it would be used to further critical thinking than as a crèche with pretty coloured pens and scissors to play with.
As an actual scientist who is willing to chime in on the subject, the answer for something that is unknown is simple. It consists of three words. Well, one is a contraction so I suppose it should be four words. We don't know. No extrapolation is needed and filling the hole with anything other than genuine knowledge is a monument to human foolishness, otherwise known as the god-of-the-gaps argument, which is not an argument by any stretch of the imagination. It is and has been used because people don't handle uncertainty well at all. That is the driving force behind moral objectivism, too. Absolute anything is better than not knowing or relying on our own wit.
What is worse is that there is a silent, tacit acceptance of this non-argument that tends to lend it credence. It is long past due that this kind of nonsense (polite for bullshit) be called out each and every time it arises. I know, it smacks of militant behavior, but it is time we take an active role in clearing out the woo locker.
EDIT FOR ADDITIONAL NOTE: It should be borne in mind that BioLogos is a Christian advocacy group and that Deborah Haarsma and her husband are both bathed in woo. Where it is a source of dismay that trained scientists like Deborah can be so deeply entrenched in their beliefs, it is not surprising. The guru at AIG is also a trained 'actual' scientist who has some rather unique ideas about how discrepancies in the bible regarding biblical collisions with astronomical knowns can be explained. Here he is at his best:
evidentialist
Level 8
July 9, 2018
3
@icolan -- Fortunately, nothing upon which life depends -- unless you include educating the young, which is part of his role at AIG.
A nice exposition of the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
July 9, 2018
0
There’s no such thing as the supernatural. There is however the part of nature that we can not understand with our space/time/matter model. Also there are deep, deep questions whose answers are probably unknowable. In that sense nature is all “supernatural”, and the part that we can detect, which we call the physical, we see only dimly, crudely, and indirectly.
The spirit of science is to forge ahead into the unknown, to pounce greedily on new thoughts and ideas. A lot of people seem to think that science is all about stifling discussion of ideas that don’t fit the established scientific world view, and debunking anomalous evidence.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
July 9, 2018
4
Actually I believe that humanity's need to answer, currently unanswerable questions is specifically the driving force behind our scientific advancement.
How many things has humanity taken as an answer until someone stepped in and figured out it was bullshit? Not just with religion, the medical field has for a long time had ideas that were off base and once someone came along and figured it out it was widely accepted.
I'd say that without the need to find those answers, we'd have neither religion, nor the actual answers we've been yearning for.
mattersauce
Level 7
July 9, 2018
3
People here seem so quick to deny the possibility of something simply because it has yet to be understood. If people believe that right now we are at the pinnacle of science and understanding are not going to go very far.
LadyAlyxandrea
Level 8
July 9, 2018
2
People are so quick to dismiss the very idea of ghosts simply because there's not much science yet to prove or disprove them. It slays me how people so open to science are closed off to the idea that there are still things we cannot explain yet. The key word being yet.
@LadyAlyxandrea We're not necessarily closed to such ideas; it's just that, like the existence of God (or lack thereof, which is why we are all here), we're not going to put much credence into anything that has not (yet) been shown to be scientifically factual. Until then, if you believe in ghosts, then you may as well believe in God.
@LadyAlyxandrea The idea of ghosts has been around for as long as the idea of god has.. And neither have provided any tangible evidence. Don't you think that something such as that that has been a part of humanity for ages now would have some kind of evidence? I don't believe in ghosts, but I don't rule out the possibility. Thing is, a possibility without proof is still just a possibility. Lots of things are possible, should you be putting belief into them just because they're possible? If so, you kind of cancel it out because without proof, when something that is possible, it's just as possible that it isn't.
@godef An alternative to believing is to be intensely curious and interested in reality and to be open-minded. A courageous person knows she doesn’t have final answers but might lean toward certain metaphysical concepts. The degree of leaning might vary over time.
The not-so-courageous claim to know with 100% confidence, or they totally dismiss the concept. They are rigidly upright over time, with no leaning.
The existence of evidence, facts and data should be paramount to anyone's "beliefs". If you accept the existence of ANYTHING without supporting evidence, facts and data, you open yourself for all kind of nonsense.
@jlynn37 likewise if you completely reject the possibility without concrete evidence, then you close yourself off to all kinds of potential
@LadyAlyxandrea This may be true and even though there could be a possibility that ANYTHING might exist, I live an evidence based reality and for me at least, if there is no evidence, facts or data to support something's existence, it doesn't exist until some evidence, facts or data can be produced.
As of our current understanding of the inner workings of a black hole singularity, anything is possible. The scene's from Interstellar are as possible as interdimensional travel or seeing deceased people or animals.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Christopher Hitchens Fans
80 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.