The God of the Gaps Argument

[allfoak]

False.

Belief and faith drive men to murder. It can be very dangerous

Just like Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc...

 

[Laika]

I am speaking to those who say that God is necessary and use God of the Gaps argument as proof for their claim.

Fair enough.

 

[Iti oj]

Just like Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc...

False comparison. They didn't do it in the name of atheism or secularism but In the name of the state, it's leader and it's power

 

[allfoak]

False comparison. They didn't do it in the name of atheism or secularism but In the name of the state, it's leader and it's power

You are correct.
Beliefs do not have to be religious to be harmful.

This is getting way off the intent of the OP.

 

[Iti oj]

You are correct.
Beliefs do not have to be religious to be harmful.

This is getting way off the intent of the OP.

Good point been fun. But pm if you want

 

[leibowde84]

You are correct.
Beliefs do not have to be religious to be harmful.

This is getting way off the intent of the OP.

So, you agree it's a false comparison? Because, that is another fallacy I see a lot on RF.

 

[outhouse]

Just like Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc...

Non sequitur.

The danger of faith can be cured.

Its harder to cure political motives.

 

[outhouse]

Beliefs do not have to be religious to be harmful.

No one said they did

Your juts moving goal post from desperation

 

[allfoak]

So, you agree it's a false comparison? Because, that is another fallacy I see a lot on RF.

I said correct, because they did not make the decisions they made because they were atheists necessarily but because of their political beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

I said correct, because they did not make the decisions they made because they were atheists necessarily but because of their political beliefs.

Fair enough. I'm not sure anyone would contend that ONLY religious beliefs cause violence. But, I also don't think that violence has been committed in the name of atheism either. Many people bring up people like Stalin and Mao, but they can't support their claim that they committed these acts in the name of atheism, rather than their own political aspirations. People have, however, committed acts of violence in the name of their religious beliefs throughout the ages.

 

[Thana]

Fair enough. I'm not sure anyone would contend that ONLY religious beliefs cause violence. But, I also don't think that violence has been committed in the name of atheism either. Many people bring up people like Stalin and Mao, but they can't support their claim that they committed these acts in the name of atheism, rather than their own political aspirations. People have, however, committed acts of violence in the name of their religious beliefs throughout the ages.

And you don't think there were any people who used religion as a tool to gain political power?
I don't understand why it's not okay to judge the motives of Atheists who've done evil things but it's perfectly fine to say it was because of religion that Theists did evil things.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Why do you think that this discussion hinges on the God of Abrahamic religions?

Well, it may just be that I'm ignorant of any of this discussion, but I say this because I haven't seen anyone arguing that Brahman, for example, is only found in the gaps of our knowledge. I don't see how it applies to Buddhism. I have no "gods," but other pagans do--my construction/understanding of spirits is that they are what we detect in the world--the spirit of Storm IS the storm, not some separate entity. The spirit of wind is detectable as temperature/air pressure differences as well as speed and direction of motion, and so on. It seems to me (and I may be mistaken, because I personally don't usually spend a whole lot of time worrying about this issue) that the people you are mostly concerned about is followers who are trying to support the idea of the universal omni-everything creator deity of the Abrahamic religions, because it is increasingly clear--as you point out--that science is finding out more and more about how the cosmos actually is structured and functions, and it doesn't seem to leave much room for such a creator deity that's on a personal first-name basis with every human on Earth.

 

[outhouse]

I don't understand why it's not okay to judge the motives of Atheists who've done evil things but it's perfectly fine to say it was because of religion that Theists did evil things.

because by study, we can understand the motives of men.


To date has there ever been an atheist in control who has murdered I name of removing all theist just because they were not atheist?


YOU WILL NOT make any credible excuses for factual sectarian violence and genocide of some theist in history

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For too long now, theists on this site have relied upon various forms of the “God of the Gaps” argument, which is an “argument from ignorance” or “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. An argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

The “God of the gaps” argument (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered. The god of the gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps).

After all these years of scientific developments, the gaps are shrinking, but, still, people revert to these irritating arguments. Science is still a relatively new endeavor, and it is ludicrous to assume the limits of it, imho. Does anyone find it acceptable to use these arguments in rational discourse? Should we put up with people relying on these logical fallacies as evidence? What are your thoughts?

I see them valid if their beliefs of whatever gap is does not impose on other peoples rights to believe differently.

People "abuse" beliefs. Beliefs in themselves do nothing.

If person A wants to believe god created the earth and person B says its the big bang, both are fine. Its when we abuse these beliefs and impose it on others thats where problems lie.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, it may just be that I'm ignorant of any of this discussion, but I say this because I haven't seen anyone arguing that Brahman, for example, is only found in the gaps of our knowledge. I don't see how it applies to Buddhism. I have no "gods," but other pagans do--my construction/understanding of spirits is that they are what we detect in the world--the spirit of Storm IS the storm, not some separate entity. The spirit of wind is detectable as temperature/air pressure differences as well as speed and direction of motion, and so on. It seems to me (and I may be mistaken, because I personally don't usually spend a whole lot of time worrying about this issue) that the people you are mostly concerned about is followers who are trying to support the idea of the universal omni-everything creator deity of the Abrahamic religions, because it is increasingly clear--as you point out--that science is finding out more and more about how the cosmos actually is structured and functions, and it doesn't seem to leave much room for such a creator deity that's on a personal first-name basis with every human on Earth.

I have a off topic question for you. Why call it spirit of the wind if the wind is spirit itself? Why not call it wind?

I asked in another thread (not to you) never got an answer. Thoughts?

 

[outhouse]

I don't see how it applies to Buddhism

Easy.

Attribute any aspect of nature to the religious concept in an area you have no knowledge of, is placing a god in the gaps of your knowledge

 

[Thana]

because by study, we can understand the motives of men.


To date has there ever been an atheist in control who has murdered I name of removing all theist just because they were not atheist?


YOU WILL NOT make any credible excuses for factual sectarian violence and genocide of some theist in history

We can speculate on the motives of men. For someone so insistent on facts you seem to let that slide when it benefits your ideology.

Calm down, I'm not excusing anything or anyone. I was just wondering why Atheism always gets a free pass when it comes to questioning peoples motives.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Easy.

Attribute any aspect of nature to the religious concept in an area you have no knowledge of, is placing a god in the gaps of your knowledge

If it's easy, please apply it to Buddhism. I don't think I've every heard anyone try to explain how Buddhism is placing "God in the Gaps," whether as a challenge to Buddhism, or as a defense of Buddhism--and, I don't have enough detailed knowledge of Buddhism and enough experience with the God of the Gaps argument to see it right at this moment myself.

 

[outhouse]

We can speculate on the motives of men.

Sometimes with complete certainty

I was just wondering why Atheism always gets a free pass

It does not.

Its hard to blame atheism for something in theistic context, because they do the opposite.

Now in political context, yes we know people can be terrible no matter what they believe in. But to dat no atheist in politics has ever committed genocide because people were not atheist, in the name of atheism.


I have no problem pointing out atheistic mistakes. many hold bias and are ignorant of biblical text, and when they make errors in stating what is actually known, I jump all over them just as quick as a YEC debating against evolution.

Many embarrass themselves as atheism in not really a group thing. To date it is still sort of an individual thing

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I've never, ever felt anything but disdain for these types of arguments. And they are all but inevitable when in debate with many people of faith. Eventually a question like the following will come: "Well then how do you explain Earth and everything on it?" And my answer is: "I don't." and then I question them as to why they feel they require an explanation. Or rather, why do they feel entitled to be "in" on an explanation?

I'll never forget the video I saw of Kirk Cameron smugly posing the "If you see a painting you know it had a painter..." analogy/argument to a room full of college-age atheists, which he lured to the "debate" by literally stating that he had definitive proof of God's existence. Immediately following this revelation of "his" (he likely read the statement in some coffee table reader - I picture him with the book in hand, the light of heaven shining down on him with a harp playing in the background), the room erupted into questions and counter-points, which left the stuttering Cameron all but speechless. In an interview afterward he (and I am serious here) said that he didn't expect so much push back - he literally thought he had THE answer - that he was going to convert a whole room of atheists on the spot. And that, I feel, is the level of naivete we who don't subscribe to these ideas are up against.