• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The God of the Gaps Argument

Are "God of the Gaps" arguments valid?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • No

    Votes: 28 77.8%

  • Total voters
    36

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I've still yet to come across someone who has agreed/acknowledged that Atheism was a motive behind anything with any negative connotations.
You would have an easier time attributing not-stamp-collecting as the motive of negative acts. After all, rounding up people into gulags IS a form of not-stamp-collecting.

But if you really want to criticize atheists for their beliefs, do it for the things that they actually believe, not what they don't believe.

... now, this probably means talking to atheists to find out exactly what they believe, because it varies from atheist to atheist.

Take me: I'm a skeptic and a secular humanist. Please regale me with stories about all the times in history when demanding that claims be supported with compelling evidence and sound reasoning led to the downfall of a society, or times when bands of marauders committef genocide in the name of the intrinsic worth and respect of every human being.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
People are entitled to believe what they please.

They are entitled to believe what they please, but they are not entitled to assert that the reason(s) they believe something are good grounds for believing something unless they are indeed good grounds for believing something.

For instance, wishful thinking is a generally poor reason to believe something. You might be entitled to it. But you are not entitled to demand that more mature people agree with you.

No one can insist that you be logical. But the purpose of studying logic is not to dictate to others what they can or cannot think. You study it rather to help prevent you yourself from being fooled.
 

Thana

Lady
You would have an easier time attributing not-stamp-collecting as the motive of negative acts. After all, rounding up people into gulags IS a form of not-stamp-collecting.

But if you really want to criticize atheists for their beliefs, do it for the things that they actually believe, not what they don't believe.

... now, this probably means talking to atheists to find out exactly what they believe, because it varies from atheist to atheist.

Take me: I'm a skeptic and a secular humanist. Please regale me with stories about all the times in history when demanding that claims be supported with compelling evidence and sound reasoning led to the downfall of a society, or times when bands of marauders committef genocide in the name of the intrinsic worth and respect of every human being.

The problem isn't so much Atheism, It's Anti-Theism. And you'll be hard pressed to find an Atheist who isn't just a smidge of an Anti-Theist. And Anti-Theism is an active belief, something that can very easily be radicalized and which we've seen happen numerous times.

So yes, disbelief on it's own isn't much of anything. But active disbelief is. I'm pretty sure I've shot down your 'not stamp collecting' theory before with a similar argument.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
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.


How is it logically possible to deduce "We must kill theists" from "We don't believe in deities"?
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
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 suppose that comes down to if one wishes to pursue such a debate knowing that their "opponent" demands and needs physical exoteric evidence. It really is fruitless, has little profit, and it would be more wise for one to tame the tongue (or fingers) from pursuing the wind.

They are only irritating if you allow them to be, which will just burn yourself. If you were a man of logic, you would realize that you don't have to put up with anything. Simply deny yourself, no one is forcing you to put up with anything or anyone or get irritated. That's on you and you alone.

The terms "bad," "illogical," "ludicrous," "irritating," etc. suggest a particular judgement as if a "god of the gaps" is judging people based on lack of rational, empirical, logical physical evidence. What is the true judge on all of this? What is "God?" What or who is the ultimate determiner of what is logical/acceptable and what is illogical/unacceptable? What will the consequences be? What rewards will the winner or loser of the debate receive?

Other than that, I agree that if one using the "God of the gaps" wishes to engage in a debate with someone looking for physical exoteric evidence... they cannot provide what the other is looking for and it is punching the wind.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Yes. The biggest problem in the world today is the lack of education.

Many use such an extreme mythological filter that all incoming information goes through, that credible education is stunted at best, and or thrown out the window completely.

Lets use you as an example. You have been around a while and I would posit, you are educated in religions. But you are the minority. If the world was full of people like you we would probably have a more peaceful and educated worlds. You communicate well despite different beliefs and knowledge and faith.

Many people are not well educated, this breeds poverty, hatred and violence, disease and belief in mythology over reality. When all you have is religion, you have no moderation and this faith is dangerous and not healthy.

I can see that, true. I mean off/on topic, I was talking to a co-worker of mine about the Bible just an hour ago. We have very good conversations but the problem is (and I dont think she sees it) is we are talking from her perspective not ours perspectives. So, I was telling her a bit about my faith as a Buddha. I told her what we believe and things that are not like Christianity where it's a "separate religion" but a part of life where you don't think of as a religion/faith. It's just common sense (to me, anyway).

Then she talks about the holidays and you know where that went. I did the same as I do here and asked her to take out the pagan elements and see the "holy day" for what it means not the dressing around it.

Then she says, which almost made me go into tears as a pagan, she says there is this one part of the world in one area (past or present I cant remember) where the citizens would go up to the top of the mountain and watch the sun rise and set. They would pray to the sun. She said that was just so pagan. Like the hatred for paganism wasn't just her opinion but something ingraved in her that I was just in shock over.

I mean, I know religion can say things that don't make logical sense to those who disbelieve it. That's fine. I mean, if someone wants to believe they can fly, and they flap their wings every morning in prayer, that's their deal. That's no different than me going outside in the morning or facing east and praying to the sun while Joe smoe takes his children out to play with neighbors. It's no different than John who believes in unicorns than my finding wisdom in the sutras rather than scripture.

People use religion in many different ways. If the "god of the gaps" is about this abuse, then yes, I can see why it's important. If it is just debating about how people justify their belief with "fictional" explanations to get out of saying "I dont know" that is not a problem. I dont see how it could be.

Judging by my co-workers reaction, I dont think she is even aware of "god of the gaps" because those justifications and explanations are her worldview. It's like trying to get a blind man to see or a person with sight to undestand what it means to be blind (whichever analogy is best).

Anyway, I just came in the house. I'm understanding you. I just dont feel the argument in and of itself is a problem, just the use of it.

It's like blaming god for not solving all the worlds problems. If god doesn't exist, then how is that a problem other than peoples' hurt of seeing problems they cant change in full.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The problem isn't so much Atheism, It's Anti-Theism. And you'll be hard pressed to find an Atheist who isn't just a smidge of an Anti-Theist. And Anti-Theism is an active belief, something that can very easily be radicalized and which we've seen happen numerous times.

Three statements in sequence, not one of them even close to being true.

You will have trouble with the relevance and even the meaningfulness of your claims until and unless that worrisome pattern gets better.


So yes, disbelief on it's own isn't much of anything. But active disbelief is. I'm pretty sure I've shot down your 'not stamp collecting' theory before with a similar argument.

That sounds unlikely in the extreme.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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?

Those kinds of arguments are worthless, and serve only to cheapen religion - or more specifically, belief in God.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
No.

Its a system in which people generally place ignorance over knowledge. It has nothing to do with a god.


Again most of the time it is used in conversations discussion religious zealot fundamentalist promoting mythology into reality. It does not often get used in a generals sense against the common theist.

Hence the "context" part I used in my first post to address your reply.

Often it is used in debates against topics like evolution where someone is describing the fanaticism of said theist

Placing ignorance over knowledge is not a problem in and of itself. It's what we do because of our "supposed" ignorance that may or may not lead to problems. Since not all people who are ignorant do bad things, making it a problem seems to generalize that all ignorant people are in the catagory of fanatical etc. Not all are.
 

Thana

Lady
Three statements in sequence, not one of them even close to being true.

You will have trouble with the relevance and even the meaningfulness of your claims until and unless that worrisome pattern gets better.

That's a lot of words for "I disagree"
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The problem isn't so much Atheism, It's Anti-Theism. And you'll be hard pressed to find an Atheist who isn't just a smidge of an Anti-Theist. And Anti-Theism is an active belief, something that can very easily be radicalized and which we've seen happen numerous times.

So yes, disbelief on it's own isn't much of anything. But active disbelief is. I'm pretty sure I've shot down your 'not stamp collecting' theory before with a similar argument.

Why do I get the feeling this is another case of confusing anti-Christianity with anti-theism? in what way would you say most atheists are or have anti-theism except that they are not convinced theism is true?
If that's all it takes then are all theists also anti-atheists?
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.

Communism is a tricky one. Whilst Communism often gets equated with all forms of atheism as if atheism were a single "whole", atheism is actually a rather diverse collection of philosophies. Communists were not secular and didn't believe there was a seperation between public political beliefs and private religious beliefs as we do. they believed that Communism was a worldview, which is why it was totalitarian and sought to regulate not simply politics, but religion, science, culture, art, etc. Rather they believed that our consciousness is social, not individual. They thought it was social in that ideas are the product of shared activity, are shared through education, the media, within families etc. our ideas are conseqeuntly inherited through generations and formed by our social-economic system rather than simply being the product of a single individual. In attempting to plan the economy on the basis of a single economic plan, they need people to accept and agree to it- which requires that the state manage and compell people to consent to that plan. The state therefore has to regulate people's thoughts and beliefs so that they not only act the right way, but actually believe it.

So what they belived is something roughly like the "socialisation of thought" where ideas cease to be the private property of an individual and deny the inherent right to free thought, and instead that a person's beliefs and thoughts are social property that can and should be regulated by the state. It varies, but in the more extreme periods, they mandated a set of beliefs as the "correct" one as in Mao's Cultural Revolution. To many atheists, it would appear that this is a theocratic or religious system, but again that is a false eqivilency. it is just that not everyone accept free individual thought as a given but its such an alien and alarming idea. In a communist system therefore Religious people are "thought criminals" because they don't think the "correct" thoughts and they continue to be persecuted in the remaining communist systems. This is why they are state atheists, but it should be clear they are very "odd" in terms of western thought.
 

Thana

Lady
Why do I get the feeling this is another case of confusing anti-Christianity with anti-theism? in what way would you say most atheists are or have anti-theism except that they are not convinced theism is true?
If that's all it takes then are all theists also anti-atheists?

Mm, no.. I mean Anti-Theism.
Because generally I've found most Atheists believe organized religion to be detrimental to people and society, ie a little Anti-Theist. It's not a criticism, just a personal observation.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
People use religion in many different ways. If the "god of the gaps" is about this abuse, then yes, I can see why it's important.

It is about abuse more then anything, In my opinion.

I almost never use it in a debate, often abuse can be dealt with in different ways.

I remember in my past I used it, but the last few years I cant remember off he top of my head when I used it last.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
After reading your post I went back and voted 'Yes'. Even though the OP was insinuating the question was 'who supports a stupid argument'.
I'm the 6th and I understand.
So you believe that where science has not explained a particular phenomenon, it's best explained by claiming God-did-it?

Now, first of all, do you know that Wikipedia was hit by a group called Guerilla Skeptics? Here's the link Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia
Yes I do. In this case I'm well aware of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy and find the Wikipedia explanation to be a very decent one.

Now my main point is an 'argument' here is being confused by many with 'proof'. On controversial subjects there can be arguments both for and against.
Yes there can be, but the god-of-the-gaps fallacy isn't a proper or even good one. For one thing, it's a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds; it's been overturned time and again. It's just invoked and left as is, whereas science fills in such gaps where it can with evidence and reasoned conclusions. For another thing it's an imprudent idea. If accepted as valid it would have stopped science in its tracks and we would still be watching the Sun go around the Earth.

In this case I think the argument from First Cause and the argument for Design are valid arguments (not proof).
Their bases being outright faith, which I don't see imparting any validity whatsoever.

The term "God of the Gaps' is a pejorative created by atheists.
Really! From the Wikipedia article.

"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.​
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Placing ignorance over knowledge is not a problem in and of itself.

To me, ignorance is one of the worlds largest problems.

It promotes lack of education or limited education.


Many keys to people being able to get along in peace is tied to communication. The more one is educated the possibility of being a better communicator rises dramatically.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Because generally I've found most Atheists believe organized religion to be detrimental to people and society

I do see that out of some but not most.

Those are the uneducated ones that have no knowledge yet.

I se the positive side, but I sure hope you understand the need of improvement and understand there is valid and credible criticism against theism.
 

Thana

Lady
I do see that out of some but not most.

Those are the uneducated ones that have no knowledge yet.

I se the positive side, but I sure hope you understand the need of improvement and understand there is valid and credible criticism against theism.

That is why I said most and generally.

And no, I don't see any valid criticism against Theism itself but I do see problems with organized religion though that doesn't mean I think the world would be even remotely better off without it altogether.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So you believe that where science has not explained a particular phenomenon, it's best explained by claiming God-did-it?
No, only certain phenomena (such as those I mentioned) best suggest a 'beyond the physical' element. To call it the God of Abraham is going to far.
Yes there can be, but the god-of-the-gaps fallacy isn't a proper or even good one. For one thing, it's a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds; it's been overturned time and again.
The stronger cases I mentioned have never been overturned.

It's just invoked and left as is, whereas science fills in such gaps where it can with evidence and reasoned conclusions. For another thing it's an imprudent idea. If accepted as valid it would have stopped science in its tracks and we would still be watching the Sun go around the Earth.
Seeing the strength in certain arguments in no way suggests stopping any science.
Their bases being outright faith, which I don't see imparting any validity whatsoever.
Faith has nothing to do with it. The argument is advanced through logical reasoning.
 
Top