Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[Gambit]

This thread is to educate those of you who apparently do not understand the difference between science and metaphysics. It is also to educate those of you who apparently do not understand what a "God of the gaps" actually is.

Definitions:

Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is the idea that all scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of naturalism seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature.

(source: Wikipedia: Naturalism (philosophy))

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it.

(source: Wikipedia: Metaphysics)

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1]

(source: Wikipedia: God of the gaps))

Why is all this relevant? Because there are more than a few here (primarily atheists and agnostics, albeit, there are some theists) who have argued that the belief in the existence of God cannot be rationally justified because "God" cannot be scientifically validated by empirical observation. This is a ridiculous argument because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science (which is based on methodological naturalism) is in the business of explaining physical phenomena by identifying natural causes. God (as traditionally understood) is a supernatural cause and therefore beyond the purview of science. Also, metaphysics is in the business of explaining the fundamental nature of being. So, a metaphysical argument which posits God (who has traditionally been understood as subsistent being itself) as the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is not a "God of the gaps" argument. Why? Because the mystery being is within the domain of metaphysics, not of science.

 

[Shad]

Why is all this relevant? Because there are more than a few here (primarily atheists and agnostics, albeit, there are some theists) who have argued that the belief in the existence of God cannot be rationally justified because "God" cannot be scientifically validated by empirical observation. This is a ridiculous argument because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science (which is based on methodological naturalism) is in the business of explaining physical phenomena by identifying natural causes. God (as traditionally understood) is a supernatural cause and therefore beyond the purview of science. Also, metaphysics is in the business of explaining the fundamental nature of being. So, a metaphysical argument which posits God (who has traditionally been understood as subsistent being itself) as the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is not a "God of the gaps" argument. Why? Because the mystery being is within the domain of metaphysics, not of science.

It is still a god of the gaps argument. Science does not know how cause of the universe. You propose a metaphysical explanation due to the lack of this answer. Besides there are physicists attempting to answer this question thus is part sciences scope thus you argument fails as you either are ignorant or ignore this fact. What do you think string theory is.... Metaphysical explains nothing as explanation require evidence. Metaphysics is speculation, nothing more. More so all of the God ideas beyond acting as a cause are based on theology more than philosophy. The 3 omni's are not philosophy but theological constructs. In the end your own reference refutes your view.

Fine example of a self-refuting argument. Also you didn't read your own links. Perhaps you should of otherwise you wouldn't not have missed the key part of your links

"
Religion and spirituality
Theology is the study of a god or gods and the nature of the divine. Whether there is a god (monotheism), many gods (polytheism) or no gods (atheism), or whether it is unknown or unknowable whether any gods exist (agnosticism; apophatic theology), and whether a divine entity directly intervenes in the world (theism), or its sole function is to be the first cause of the universe (deism); these and whether a god or gods and the world are different (as in panentheism and dualism), or are identical (as in pantheism), are some of the primary metaphysical questions concerning philosophy of religion.

Within the standard Western philosophical tradition, theology reached its peak under the medieval school of thought known as scholasticism, which focused primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Christianity. The work of the scholastics is still an integral part of modern philosophy,[9] with key figures such as Thomas Aquinas still playing an important role in the philosophy of religion.[10]"

Theology is part of religion....

 

[Gambit]

It is still a god of the gaps argument. Science does not know how cause of the universe.

It is not possible (even in theory) to explain the cause of nature by resorting to only a natural cause because any such cause would have to qualify as a part of nature itself and would therefore be in need of explanation. This is why the mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science. I propose a metaphysical explanation because that's the only rationally justified explanation.

 

[Gambit]

It is not possible (even in theory) to explain the cause of nature by appealing only to a natural cause, because any such cause would have to qualify as a part of nature itself and would therefore be in need of explanation. This is why the mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science. I propose a metaphysical and theological explanation to the mystery of existence because that's the only rationally justified explanation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I still don't believe in God.

 

[Shad]

It is not possible (even in theory) to explain the cause of nature by resorting to only a natural cause because any such cause would have to qualify as a part of nature itself and would therefore be in need of explanation. This is why the mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science. I propose a metaphysical explanation because that's the only rationally justified explanation.

I do not accept metaphysical naturalism for the same reason I reject metaphysical supernaturalism. Both are just speculation based on a priori people assert.

You propose speculation just like those that propose metaphysical naturalism. Beside you dismissed the idea that nature may need no cause without warrant only due to a religious presupposition you hold. If there is no evidence to make a conclusion for an view, no argument that is valid and sound for any metaphysical position the most rational view is to say "I have no idea" not inject your religious presupposition as an answer.

You are arguing a fallacious point. Only theist that hold the presupposition that nature requires a cause that is not from nature. You claim victory when one can not meet your fallacious point. Congratulation on your irrational victory.

 

[Skwim]

Definitions:

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1]

(source: Wikipedia: God of the gaps))

Why is all this relevant? Because there are more than a few here (primarily atheists and agnostics, albeit, there are some theists) who have argued that the belief in the existence of God cannot be rationally justified because "God" cannot be scientifically validated by empirical observation.

Boy, not that I've seen here. See my remark below.

This is a ridiculous argument because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science (which is based on methodological naturalism) is in the business of explaining physical phenomena by identifying natural causes.

But if their standard of evidence is empirical observation then it's hardly surprising that no other basis would suffice. I fail to see the import of your remark. It anything, it appears to be a straw man.

God (as traditionally understood) is a supernatural cause and therefore beyond the purview of science. Also, metaphysics is in the business of explaining the fundamental nature of being. So, a metaphysical argument which posits God (who has traditionally been understood as subsistent being itself) as the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is not a "God of the gaps" argument. Why? Because the mystery being is within the domain of metaphysics, not of science.

From your linked Wikipedia source:

"Usage in referring to a type of argument
The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

• There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
• Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases."​

And this is the only way in which I've seen a God-of-the-gaps argument referred to here on RF, as an argument from ignorance.

 

[Gambit]

I do not accept metaphysical naturalism for the same reason I reject metaphysical supernaturalism.

I believe you have a metaphysical position (a worldview), even if you are unwilling to acknowledge that. But if you truly believe that you do not, that you do not have enough information to form some kind of rational belief on the matter, then we have nothing to discuss.

Beside you dismissed the idea that nature may need no cause without warrant.

Knowledge has been traditionally defined as justified belief. I believe I am rationally justified to believe in a necessary being because reason tells me that I must posit one to account for a world of contingent beings. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree. Besides, by rejecting metaphysics, you are barring yourself from engaging in any metaphysical debate.

 

[Shad]

I believe you have a metaphysical position (a worldview), even if you are unwilling to acknowledge that. But if you truly believe that you do not, that you do not have enough information to form some kind of rational belief on the matter, then we have nothing to discuss.

My metaphysical worldview is "I do not know" and "no one else does either regardless of what they claim"

Knowledge has been traditionally defined as justified belief. I believe I am rationally justified to believe in a necessary being because reason tells me that I must posit one to account for a world of contingent beings. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree. Besides, by rejecting metaphysics, you are barring yourself from engaging in any metaphysical debate.

Justification also requires sound and valid logic along with evidence. Arguments for God are not logical and you said yourself there is no evidence for God. So you view is unjustified. It is faith, not knowledge.

I do not bar myself from any such debate since I can still argue that your metaphysical worldview is just religious faith, nothing more than that. I just decline to speculate under a facade of "knowledge" which is really just a faith position attempting to sound more credible. You argument amounts to bluster. "If you do not believe in fairies you can not talk about fairies even as a dissenting opinion" You claim is nonsense in order to attempt to silence opposing views.

 

[Gambit]

Skwim,

A God of a gaps argument (a term which was actually coined by theologians, not atheistic scientists) is a argument which attempts to place God as a causal agent in some gap of ignorance in our present scientific knowledge. Positing God as a metaphysical explanation for the mystery of existence is not a God of the gaps argument because it is addressing something that is beyond the purview of science. And if you believe otherwise, then you don't understand the difference between science and metaphysics.

 

[Gambit]

Justification also requires sound and valid logic along with evidence. Arguments for God are not logical and you said yourself there is no evidence for God. So you view is unjustified.

I never argued that there is no evidence for God. I only argued that God cannot be scientifically validated. But there is definitely evidence for God. That there is something rather than nothing qualifies as more than enough evidence to posit God.

I do not bar myself from any such debate.

Good day.

 

[Shad]

Skwim,

A God of a gaps argument (a term which was actually coined by theologians, not atheistic scientists) is a argument which attempts to place God as a causal agent in some gap of ignorance in our present scientific knowledge. Positing God as a metaphysical explanation for the mystery of existence is not a God of the gaps argument because it is addressing something that is beyond the purview of science. And if you believe otherwise, then you don't understand the difference between science and metaphysics.

Problem is you are already concluding science can never find an answer without cause. The god of the gap argument is still an argument from ignorance regardless. It's basic form still points out your views are still fallacious. Simple put you claim there is no answer for X, then propose Y metaphysical presupposition. In fact using the supernatural as a parameter makes it even more of an argument from ignorance. than even a non-God claim is.

 

[Shad]

I never argued that there is no evidence for God. I only argued that God cannot be scientifically validated.

Then it isn't evidence, it is an opinion based on nothing. You declare God can not be verified as a form of special pleading so you can just assert whatever you want. It is still fallacious reasoning.

But there is definitely evidence for God. That there is something rather than nothing qualifies as more than enough evidence to posit God.

Special pleading and argument from ignorance. The universe could be all that is required to answer this question. You add unnecessary parameters all while claims that the rules that you follow do not apply to the explanation you claim has evidence. You are contradicting yourself as well since there is something which has evidence, obviously while nothing has no evidence at all. Nothing does not even exist in reality. Your presupposition is that nothing is the natural state of reality rather than there being something is the natural state. You are proposing something thus already concluded that nothing is impossible. God is a something. Why is there a God something rather than complete nothing. Typical special pleading follows in which God is immune to the very parameters you claim for everything else.

I could easily propose that the universe is caused by the Big Bang singularity. This singularity is immune due to special pleading followed by special pleading. I could also just claim the singularity is eternal, done no need for a God.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim,

A God of a gaps argument. . . is a argument which attempts to place God as a causal agent in some gap of ignorance in our present scientific knowledge.

Yup.

Positing God as a metaphysical explanation for the mystery of existence is not a God of the gaps argument because it is addressing something that is beyond the purview of science.

Among other things.

 

[McBell]

Skwim,

A God of a gaps argument (a term which was actually coined by theologians, not atheistic scientists) is a argument which attempts to place God as a causal agent in some gap of ignorance in our present scientific knowledge. Positing God as a metaphysical explanation for the mystery of existence is not a God of the gaps argument because it is addressing something that is beyond the purview of science. And if you believe otherwise, then you don't understand the difference between science and metaphysics.

I'm sory.
I failed to see where the god of the gaps was restricted to nothing but science.
Would you please be so kind as to point out where that restriction is stated?
I mean, other than you making the claim that is.

 

[HonestJoe]

God (as traditionally understood) is a supernatural cause and therefore beyond the purview of science.

That remains a matter of opinion (and one typically promoted by those with an interest of it being impossible to disprove). As I see it, supernatural is just natural we don't understand yet (like lightning, the motion of the planets or infectious disease).

The major problem here is terminology. People talk about "nature" or "the universe" as if those terms have singular clear definitions. Regardless of whether any kind of god (or some other creative power nobody has even imagined) exists or not, there is no reason that it must exist outside the scope of science. Science is just a method, a way of doing something. If a god existed, it could well apply scientific method to itself (even if the fundamental physical laws are different for them).

 

[Gambit]

I'm sory.
I failed to see where the god of the gaps was restricted to nothing but science.
Would you please be so kind as to point out where that restriction is stated?
I mean, other than you making the claim that is.

I provided that in the original post of this thread. Did you bother to actually read it?

 

[Gambit]

The major problem here is terminology. People talk about "nature" or "the universe" as if those terms have singular clear definitions. Regardless of whether any kind of god (or some other creative power nobody has even imagined) exists or not, there is no reason that it must exist outside the scope of science. Science is just a method, a way of doing something. If a god existed, it could well apply scientific method to itself (even if the fundamental physical laws are different for them).

Science confines itself to what can be objectively observed. Since the divine mind (like any mind) is inherently subjective, it is not possible (even in theory) to objectively observe it. The fact is that science cannot objectively observe human consciousness, let alone divine consciousness.

 

[HonestJoe]

Science confines itself to what can be objectively observed.

Science isn’t conscious so can’t confine itself to anything. We’re simply talking about what science is so there’s no justification for the rhetorical terminology.

Since the divine mind (like any mind) is inherently subjective, it is not possible (even in theory) to objectively observe it. The fact is that science cannot objectively observe human consciousness, let alone divine consciousness.

I’m not sure what you mean by the mind being subjective. Everything is subjective in one sense since everything we’re aware of has to be observed by each of us individually and independently at some point. I see no justification for holding up “the mind” as some special entity though.

All the minds we’re aware of appear to be entirely functions of physical brains. We don’t (yet) understand all the processes but we can make lots of direct connections between brain activity and psychological responses. It’s perfectly possible that there’s more to it than the physical processes we’re currently aware of but nothing to say any additional factor is somehow outside the scope of science.

Again, there remains countless things we couldn’t in the past and many things we still can’t properly apply scientific method to but to date all of those restrictions have been down to our practical human limitations and not anything fundamentally limiting within the principle of scientific process.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But there is definitely evidence for God. That there is something rather than nothing qualifies as more than enough evidence to posit God.

No, it doesn't, because it's quite possible there has always been "something".