The God of the Gaps Argument

[leibowde84]

I haven’t read much of this thread, and only have a brief moment here. Pardon me if someone has made an argument such as this:

P1: All phenomena whose existence are unaccounted for by an empirical finding are defecated directly by God.
P2: The energy of the universe is a phenomenon whose existence is unaccounted for by an empirical finding.
C: Therefore, the energy of the universe is defecated directly by God.

M=P
S=M
∴ S=P

That may not be a sound argument, but it is a valid argument.

However, the truth of P2 is not dependent on the lack of an empirical finding, i.e., is not merely the product of corrigible human ignorance. As a conserved quantity, it is a fact that energy can be neither created nor destroyed in a closed system. The conservation of energy is a consequence of the system’s invariance under the continuous symmetry of time translation, and is proven by Noether’s theorem. Thus, the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed in a closed system might be said to be something of an extra-empirical principle by which the known laws of nature operate. Apparently one will have to somehow look outside of the closed system of the universe in order to account for its energy content.

This still doesn't get you close to God. It merely gets you "outside the universe", or our present universe at least. The jump to God is nothing but jumping to an unsupported conclusion.

 

[George-ananda]

Saying that DNA couldn't have been developed naturally is limiting yourself to current scientific understanding.

Did I ever say 'couldn't'. I was discussing 'reasonableness' of explanations.

 

[Shad]

I haven’t read much of this thread, and only have a brief moment here. Pardon me if someone has made an argument such as this:

P1: All phenomena whose existence are unaccounted for by an empirical finding are defecated directly by God.
P2: The energy of the universe is a phenomenon whose existence is unaccounted for by an empirical finding.
C: Therefore, the energy of the universe is defecated directly by God.

M=P
S=M
∴ S=P

That may not be a sound argument, but it is a valid argument.

You said it yourself, it is not sound. Soundness is required as valid is just about the form of the argument not the truth of the premises nor conclusion.

 

[leibowde84]

Did I ever say 'couldn't'. I was discussing 'reasonableness' of explanations.

But that "reasonableness" is limited by our current scientific understanding, which, IMHO, is not sufficient to judge whether a natural explanation is reasonable or possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only if you believe that there is a 'true' Christianity, Islam, etc. If not, these 'oughts' are up for grabs. You can project pretty much anything onto a religion.

Of course, religions are ideologies rather than narrow beliefs, but what these ideologies entail is so vague and subjective that it is pointless to consider them as representing any kind of unified idea.

They're vague when applied to groups, but specific at the individual level. For instance, I recognize that Catholics vary in whether they personally agree with the Church's stance on issues like birth control and same-sex marriage. The Church's position on this issue is problematic for both sub-groups of Catholics, but for different reasons. Someone simply telling me that they're a Catholic won't tell me what their position will be on birth control, but they'll probably hold a personal position one way or the other.

The problem is people believing they can generalise about others, but not accepting generalisation about themselves.

Religious believers (and atheists) can be criticised for beliefs they hold, but shouldn't be for beliefs they don't hold.

... unless they proclaim them as true despite not believing in them.

... or proclaim their support for religious leaders who espouse these beliefs that they don't hold.

... or support with their tithes acts in accordance with those beliefs they don't hold.

... or the beliefs they don't hold are logical implications of the beliefs they do hold.

None of this is generalization; it's just considering the full implications of their position.

 

[Augustus]

Yet, your short form uses deductive logic. Interesting.

It wasn't meant to, but probably my fault re: expression though, should have made it less ambiguous. Read it as inductive reasoning where the premises are evidence for the conclusion rather than necessitating it.

You'd need more premises than that to get to "so let's send the believers off to the gulags".

Yes, but once you have decided something is harmful to society it requires a response.

Progressive ideologies have a very bad record as regards brutality as when something is 'for the good of humanity', it's pretty easy to justify violence.

Communism was disproportionately popular amongst artists and intellectuals, the group that are today super PC and 'right on'.

Just as with religious belief, there is a pretty fine line that people walk. Hitchens for example easily made the jump to 'progress through violence' in his support for neo-conservative nation building. Plenty of humanists supported that war because of their humanism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is a bit of common sense too much to ask? Really?

Just pointing out they, to some extent, share the reasoning rather than saying they are morally similar. Jehovah's Witnesses share the same reasoning as IS: God exists, belief in God is important, we should try to make people believe in God.

For someone who's quick to accuse people of generalizing, you sure are eager to generaluze yourself. What happened to not criticizing people for beliefs they don't hold?

 

[George-ananda]

It's unreasonable in the face of the evidence, but imagine there was no evidence either way; please tell me how you could possibly justify the conclusion that an unknown supernatural cause that you know nothing about is more likely than an unknown natural cause that you know nothing about? What do you know about these things about which you know nothing to use as the basis for this judgement?

It is true, that there is some judgement involved in all positions that can't be proved. That is how juries decide cases based on reasonableness. It is a rational process that we use to judge things without proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Progressive ideologies have a very bad record as regards brutality as when something is 'for the good of humanity', it's pretty easy to justify violence.

It's almost as bad ad "God wills it" in that regard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is true, that there is some judgement involved in all positions that can't be proved. That is how juries decide cases based on reasonableness. It is a rational process that we use to judge things without proof.

Funny how your response utterly failed to answer my question.

 

[Sunstone]

That is how juries decide cases based on reasonableness. It is a rational process that we use to judge things without proof.

Juries have intellectually inferior standards to the sciences.

 

[Skwim]

Faith has nothing to do with it. Arguments for reasonableness are based on logical considerations.

The discussion:

GA In this case I think the argument from First Cause and the argument for Design are valid arguments (not proof).

S Their (FC & D) bases being outright faith, which I don't see imparting any validity whatsoever.​

GA Faith has nothing to do with it. The argument (FC & D ) is advanced through logical reasoning.

S Faith has everything to do with it. You can't demonstrate a god-of-the-gaps solution is true, so it has to be accepted on faith. Whereas, scientific explanations have evidence and well reasoned, logical conclusions to back them up.

GA Faith has nothing to do with it. Arguments (FC & D) for reasonableness are based on logical considerations.​

But the "logical considerations" (FC & D) have been shown to be either cases of special pleading (C&D), not an acceptable logical basis, or is irrelevant (D).

 

[George-ananda]

But that "reasonableness" is limited by our current scientific understanding, which, IMHO, is not sufficient to judge whether a natural explanation is reasonable or possible.

When you say 'IMHO' you are acknowledging that we both are expressing 'opinions'; differing 'opinions' in this case.

 

[Sunstone]

It wasn't meant to, but probably my fault re: expression though, should have made it less ambiguous. Read it as inductive reasoning where the premises are evidence for the conclusion rather than necessitating it.



Yes, but once you have decided something is harmful to society it requires a response.

Progressive ideologies have a very bad record as regards brutality as when something is 'for the good of humanity', it's pretty easy to justify violence.

Communism was disproportionately popular amongst artists and intellectuals, the group that are today super PC and 'right on'.

Just as with religious belief, there is a pretty fine line that people walk. Hitchens for example easily made the jump to 'progress through violence' in his support for neo-conservative nation building. Plenty of humanists supported that war because of their humanism.

I still fail to find your belief that atheism lends itself to violence against believers anything but hogwash. However, I won't dispute this any further as I think to do so would involve going around in circles with you.

 

[leibowde84]

When you say 'IMHO' you are acknowledging that we both are expressing 'opinions'; differing 'opinions' in this case.

Of course. I respectfully feel that my opinion is more reasonable, that''s all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For example if someone tells me a great work ascribed to Shakespeare was written by a monkey typing randomly on a keyboard I will make a judgement on reasonableness (even though since I have no proof I am judging unknowns).

For this analogy to be valid, you would need to know nothing about Shakespeare or monkeys. Is this the case?

Also, Shakespeare is a natural explanation. For a proper analogy, the choices would have to be Shakespeare or, say, angels.

 

[Augustus]

or the beliefs they don't hold are logical implications of the beliefs they do hold.

'logical implications' I don't buy. So many things are 'logical implications' of other things but in no way necessities.

For someone who's quick to accuse people of generalizing, you sure are eager to generaluze yourself. What happened to not criticizing people for beliefs they don't hold?

I wasn't criticising. You just assumed I was.

I said Dawkins believes god doesn't exist, that belief in god is harmful to society, and should be eradicated through reasoning. Have I in any way misrepresented his position?

 

[George-ananda]

Juries have intellectually inferior standards to the sciences.

But I am not claiming my position to be THE correct scientific position. I am interested too in questions hard science can't answer at this time; which includes all the important questions.

 

[George-ananda]

But the "logical considerations" (FC & D) have been shown to be either cases of special pleading (C&D), not an acceptable logical basis, or are irrelevant (D).

Who gets to make those determinations? Who determines (D) is irrelevant?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

'logical implications' I don't buy. So many things are 'logical implications' of other things but in no way necessities.

I gave an example earlier: if someone believes that the Bible is entirely true, then they lend support to the people who take "do not suffer a witch to live" seriously, even if they say they oppose killing witches.

I wasn't criticising. You just assumed I was.

So you're okay with generalizing? Weird, but your prerogative.

I said Dawkins believes god doesn't exist, that belief in god is harmful to society, and should be eradicated through reasoning. Have I in any way misrepresented his position?

Yes, you have. I've never heard him say that religion should be eradicated. I've heard him say that atheists should be more vocal about their atheism and that religions shouldn't get as much in the way of privileges and deference, but I've never heard him call for the eradication of belief in God. In fact, from what he's written about "memetics", I doubt he'd think such a thing was even possible.