The God of the Gaps Argument

[outhouse]

If it's easy, please apply it to Buddhism.

Its harder with a nontheistic religion, that adhere to philosophy.

But there are still spiritual practices based on beliefs.

samsara for example is a belief that remains in the gaps of knowledge, same with Rebirth

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have a off topic quesrion 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?

Well, since it's off topic, I'm willing to give it one shot here, but if there's more discussion I think you should start a thread in a DIR, because it's not something I'm willing to debate about.

I do call wind, Wind, and so on. Only here, where I have to explain what I'm thinking for it to make sense to others do I make the distinction. I started out as a product of our modern rational/materialist culture, and it has taken me years to stop thinking in terms of the duality and other underlying assumptions of our culture and language. Everything is/has spirit, including things that don't have material existence, such as ideas, and spaces. All these spirits I consider as "other than human persons," a concept that is fairly easy to apply to living things like plants and animals, but it is more of a stretch for modern WEIRD people to wrap their heads around the idea of rocks, or sunlight, or water as being like a person. Regardless, persons deserve respect. I do this so that I will respect and care for the Earth and ALL of its inhabitants more than I would if I considered everything to be unliving, unspirited matter, the way most people in our culture think about the things in the world.

Does that help? Again, if you want more discussion, let's create a thread in one of the DIRs that would be more appropriate.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Its harder with a nontheistic religion, that adhere to philosophy.

But there are still spiritual practices based on beliefs.

samsara for example is a belief that remains in the gaps of knowledge, same with Rebirth

okay, got it.

 

[outhouse]

okay, got it.

I will admire your position, because you yourself are not making statements of certainty against nature or reality.

Normally god of the gaps applies to theist, who place faith before knowledge.

Its not something I would try and apply to your religion, unless placed in a corner, as you asked.

 

[Thana]

Sometimes with complete certainty



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

I've still yet to come across someone who has agreed/acknowledged that Atheism was a motive behind anything with any negative connotations.

 

[outhouse]

I've still yet to come across someone who has agreed/acknowledged that Atheism was a motive behind anything with any negative connotations.

Its kind of hard to attack someone just because the refuse obvious mythology.


I see atheistic bias based on ignorance, all the time. They attack religious belief just because, and that is not correct. Ill fight against them as hard as anyone else.

I don't play favorites based on theism or lack of it. You will often notice many atheist here arguing with each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you give us a classic example of a 'God of the Gaps' argument? I wonder if you are thinking about these arguments too simply and the proponents are implying more than 'god didit'.

I believe in God, but not from any 'God of the Gaps' argument.

The teleological argument (the argument from design) is a "God of the gaps" argument.

Most other arguments for gods either work a "God of the gaps" step into their chain of argument or skip the pretense and just make an unjustified leap.

 

[Parsimony]

Does anyone find it acceptable to use these arguments in rational discourse?

I don't think it is "acceptable" to use any fallacious reasoning in rational discourse, hence why it is fallacious.

Should we put up with people relying on these logical fallacies as evidence?

Put up with them in what sense? I believe in freedom of expression. Attacking the fallacy is fine. Attacking the person, not so much.

 

[outhouse]

Attacking the fallacy is fine. Attacking the person, not so much.

It Is pointing out a fallacy the same as pointing out stupidity?

 

[leibowde84]

And you don't think there were any people who used religion as a tool to gain political power?

No, I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that they didn't do it in the name of "atheism", whereas the same cannot be said for the major religions of the world. Which makes sense, as atheism is the absence of belief in God.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Then it seems like you merely have other names for natural occurrences recognized by the scientific world.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is wrong with the God of the Gaps in and of itself?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

So, you don't see an inherent danger of allowing others to believe things that contradict what we know to be the case by refusing to question said beliefs?

 

[Milton Platt]

Can you give us a classic example of a 'God of the Gaps' argument? I wonder if you are thinking about these arguments too simply and the proponents are implying more than 'god didit'.

I believe in God, but not from any 'God of the Gaps' argument.

It is most often used when a theist is discussing evolution. The refrain is that there are no "transitional fossils". When a theist points out that there is a gap in the fossil record, they want to believe that because we have not found one or more fossils they want to believe that this gap shows evolution to be false, and god to be real.

When a fossil is found that arguable fits somewhere in that gap, they now have two gaps that they will point to, so the more fossils found, the more gaps they will say exist. It is a backward way of thinking about it.
There are numerous fossils which signify a transition between things like fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, etc. I won't try and list them all, but you can find a list of some of them at talkorigins.org, among other places.

The real problem for a theist is that atheism does not depend on evolution anyway. It is a disbelief in gods, and does not require a belief in evolution.

 

[Milton Platt]

What is wrong with the God of the Gaps in and of itself?

It is erroneous thinking. It depends upon ignorance. It is pointing to something we do not have the answer for at this time and then saying "therefore----God." The correct answer is "I don't know".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, you don't see an inherent danger of allowing others to believe things that contradict what we know to be the case by refusing to question said beliefs?

If it does not harm others nor themselves, I see no problem in and of itself.

For example, I believe in spirits. Maybe that is fantasy for you. However, my belief and justification of their actual existence does not present any danger to anyone nor does it myself. If I abuse my beliefs and impose it on others, there is a problem. It is not the belief and justification (the gaps), it's the person who believes it and what he or she does based on the beliefs they carry.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is erroneous thinking. It depends upon ignorance. It is pointing to something we do not have the answer for at this time and then saying "therefore----God." The correct answer is "I don't know".

I understand that. It's not something I would get a twist over, though. I mean, I'd look at you kinda funny if you get fustrated because I believe in spirits and my justification for their existence. If I am not imposing my beliefs on you and you are not asking out of curiousity, learning, seeking knowledge respectful debate, etc, I see no reason to really put a thought into what I believe.

Likewise with others.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I've still yet to come across someone who has agreed/acknowledged that Atheism was a motive behind anything with any negative connotations.

Well, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the North Korean dictators, etc., may have been "politically" motivated, but they certainly attacked institutions of religion and religious people, stripped them of property, liberty, and sometimes even life, and asserted that religions were wrong, ignorant, superstition, etc., and that Atheism was right, wise, based in science, etc. And atheism is central to several variants of state socialism and communism.

 

[outhouse]

What is wrong with the God of the Gaps in and of itself?

Depends on context of who is using the statement.

 

[outhouse]

Well, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the North Korean dictators, etc., may have been "politically" motivated, but they certainly attacked institutions of religion and religious people, stripped them of property, liberty, and sometimes even life, and asserted that religions were wrong, ignorant, superstition, etc., and that Atheism was right, wise, based in science, etc. And atheism is central to several variants of state socialism and communism.

Yes they did. Cannot deny it.

It is however a drop in the bucket compared to sectarian violence, so brutal and primitive, it makes these people look like saints. Rhetorical exaggeration yes but it is true.