The God of the Gaps Argument

[outhouse]

that doesn't mean I think the world would be even remotely better off without it altogether.

Never thought about it being gone completely.

Not sure it could be worse.

But I will say one thing. In countries that have more moderate beliefs, seem to be quite a bit safer to live, and they treat women with more respect and freedom.

So the arrow might be pointing towards better. I know education levels would rise if people quit putting myth before reality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

This, though, is not like educating one about the ABCs. It's like how my former therapist put it:

I was telling him my issues and he says "there is one client that comes to his office. He hears voices and sees things that arent there. At first, these dellusions were so worse that he needed medical attention. Now," the doctor tells me, "he is going to work, has a family," and so forth "AND he still hears voices and sees things not there."

So his ignorance (mental illness or not) to what he is experiencing is real. The therapist said we don't tell them it is not. It is just it is not a problem anymore because the client learned how to live with the voices etc that other people cant hear and see.

If specific religions around the world did not give religion of itself a bad name by all the murder the people done in the name of their religion, I think that hopefully, people wont be talking about "god of the gaps" and just accept, like the therapist, that people will "hear voices and see things that are not there" and that is okay. No matter how they justify it, its between the person and their experience (and doctor, or their god, or whom/whatever)

Religious Politics cause so much mess in people's head that we (in some parts of the world) can't even see what other people see without needing to step in their shoes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Sure you have.

Even when you talk about "active disbelief", you still cast too wide a net. Do you really believe that if a person disagrees with you on one issue, regardless of their other beliefs, they risk becoming a brutal dictator or a murderous psychopath? I hate to break it to you, but belief in God just isn't that important.

Are you so unable to recognize the differences between people who aren't like you that you can't see that people like Stalin and Pol Pot are abhorrent to my belief system, too?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

Ah, maybe it's because I don't think of theism as equivalent to organized religion, re: areligious theists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Even without caing it the God of Abraham, you're engaging in an argument from ignorance. The giveaway that you are is that your argument works just as well for the opposite conclusion:

- "no known physical mechanism is responsible for X, so X must be the result of an unknown supernatural mechanism."

- "no known supernatural mechanism is responsible for X, so X must be the result of an unknown physical mechanism."

 

[Mackerni]

The concept of God is so convoluted that anyone can make a case that God did it. Doesn't make them right, doesn't make them wrong, it's just how they see the world.

How many -theism's are there in the world? And how many subsets of -theisms are there? How many concepts of God are possible? Anyone can make anything up and claim its real to them, and they wouldn't be wrong.

Monotheism - One God
Trinitarianism - Three Beings as One God
Polytheism - Multiple Gods
Henotheism - Multiple Gods but only Worship One God
Pantheism - Everything is God
Apotheosis - The Concept that Something Evolved into a God (or is in the process of).
Ignostic - God is meaningless.
Agnostic - God is unknowable.
Atheist - No God or Gods.

God is a concept. If you worship God, you are only worshipping a concept. Whether or not "God" did anyone can argue that God cause these things to happen. There's a lot of religious moderates who state that God made evolution occur and that science is by definition understanding God's design. And whether or not someone believes in creationism or evolution the fact is that we're still here by some force.

I feel like I'm derailing this post, the argument, and the conversation. Ken Ham thinks differently than Bill Nye. I agree with Bill Nye on a lot of issues regarding reality, but unlike Nye and most scientists I see things like the scientific method as our own diefication. That to me is more important this argument "with or without God" or "God of the gaps."

As Spinoza said, "Deus sive Natura". That way, you always win the argument. I'm abstaining from the poll.

 

[leibowde84]

I think the argument that complex life forming through only the forces accepted by science is highly unlikely has merit.

See, this is where I disagree. We don't know what changes, additions or improvements science will make regarding the "forces" that it accepts in the future. Thus, it seems fraudulent to limit scientific understanding in this way.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Where are you getting the erroneous notion that I am demanding "physical esoteric evidence". My point is that the God of the Gaps is nothing more than a logical fallacy ... an argument that, in reality, does not support any argument whatsoever. And, this can be shown objectively, as it is not an opinion, but is accepted fact.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Right on!

 

[Mackerni]

Ah, maybe it's because I don't think of theism as equivalent to organized religion, re: areligious theists.

Don't forget the organized irreligious. Atheists have their own clubs, organizations, and whatnot.

 

[Parsimony]

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

No. Even smart people can be mistaken.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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

Read their writings? they didn't necessarily decide to kill religious people, but they sought to remove them from positions of power, influence, wealth, sent them to the Gulag or other prisons, and so on. Some were more severe about it than others. But it's clear from their writings and their actions that they were atheists, who wanted to impose atheism by destroying those religious institutions that were a source of power against them.l

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read their writings? they didn't necessarily decide to kill religious people, but they sought to remove them from positions of power, influence, wealth, sent them to the Gulag or other prisons, and so on. Some were more severe about it than others. But it's clear from their writings and their actions that they were atheists, who wanted to impose atheism by destroying those religious institutions that were a source of power against them.l

Just so we're clear: you're saying that atheism by itself, regardless of a person's other beliefs, can motivate the person to round the religious up into gulags?

 

[Augustus]

Just so we're clear: you're saying that atheism by itself, regardless of a person's other beliefs, can motivate the person to round the religious up into gulags?

The analogue of atheism is not religion, but belief in god. Neither on their own causes violence.

Nobody ever killed anyone simply because they believe in god, but because of further beliefs that develop out of their belief in god.

'Atheist' violence also stems from further beliefs that sometimes develop out of disbelief in god: Religious belief is false, false beliefs are harmful, religious belief should be destroyed.

The desire to eradicate religious belief was central to communists who practiced 'state atheism'. Atheism was as important in this ideology as belief in god was to Crusaders and jihadis.

State atheist regimes had terrible records of persecution against religion, the Khmer Rouge being the most barbaric and murderous. Mao's Cultural Revolution was also notable for its sadistic cruelty.

The issue is really that some people want to use religious violence as a stick to beat theistic beliefs in general, but won't accept atheist violence as a potential logical consequence of atheism. The problem is the double standard.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Just so we're clear: you're saying that atheism by itself, regardless of a person's other beliefs, can motivate the person to round the religious up into gulags?

Where did you get that? Certainly not. People who are religious also have varying beliefs about things like politics and economics, and justifications of any action, especially strong action like confiscating property, denying rights, imprisoning, and executing people NEVER have just one origin. There were and are many communists who strongly disagree/d with the beliefs and actions of Stalin, Mao, etc. There are many theists who embrace/d actions against members of other religions, and against atheists--and in most every case, there are related political and economic motivations. They can't be separated, but each contributes. The examples of Stalin, Mao, etc., are examples of one kind of atheism contributing to the persecution, including death, of religious people and their organizations, along with political and economic (and social, and...). To excuse their stated beliefs and behaviors as "not being atheistic" is not reflective of reality--atheism was definitely a part of their reasoning for their actions.

 

[Unification]

Where are you getting the erroneous notion that I am demanding "physical esoteric evidence". My point is that the God of the Gaps is nothing more than a logical fallacy ... an argument that, in reality, does not support any argument whatsoever. And, this can be shown objectively, as it is not an opinion, but is accepted fact.

You aren't, but if someone says "God did it".... any debater/arguer wishing to pursue will want physical exoteric evidence/support that "God did it" in which there is none. It's why it is a logical fallacy to begin with, and there is no support for that... there is no physical exoteric evidence that will meet the demands.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The analogue of atheism is not religion, but belief in god. Neither on their own causes violence.

I'm glad you think so; beenherebeforeagain and Thana seem to disagree with you.

Nobody ever killed anyone simply because they believe in god, but because of further beliefs that develop out of their belief in god.

'Atheist' violence also stems from further beliefs that sometimes develop out of disbelief in god: Religious belief is false, false beliefs are harmful, religious belief should be destroyed.

The desire to eradicate religious belief was central to communists who practiced 'state atheism'. Atheism was as important in this ideology as belief in god was to Crusaders and jihadis.

State atheist regimes had terrible records of persecution against religion, the Khmer Rouge being the most barbaric and murderous. Mao's Cultural Revolution was also notable for its sadistic cruelty.

The issue is really that some people want to use religious violence as a stick to beat theistic beliefs in general, but won't accept atheist violence as a potential logical consequence of atheism. The problem is the double standard.

I think you're glossing over some valid arguments that aren't based on double standards:

- training people to accept beliefs or follow authority uncritically - even if the beliefs they're being trained with are benign in and of themselves - can make them vulnerable to being misled by people who present them with harmful beliefs.

- when a person proclaims that they uphold a creed that justified violence or harmful acts in the past, they take on that legacy of violence and harm. I can't take someone seriously who tells me that he believes that the entire Bible was inspired by God and then turns around and says that his beliefs have nothing to do with people who took parts of the Bible like "do not suffer a witch to live" seriously. OTOH, atheism has no creed; the creeds of individual atheists vary, and the creed of a modern skeptic, freethinking, secular humanist is not the same creed as Stalin, Pol Pot, or any of the other nasty atheists who theists like to trot out when they feel threatened.

I agree with you that these criticisms don't apply to *all* of theism in general, but they apply to many forms of mainstream theism to a much greater degree than many theists are comfortable with, and they don't have an analog in atheism.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm glad you think so; beenherebeforeagain and Thana seem to disagree with you.

No, Try reading post 135 instead of your in correct understanding. Augustus is stating what I'm stating, as far as I can tell.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where did you get that?

From the way you talked about "atheism" as some sort of monolithic thing, and from the way you gave the example of Stalin as if it should be relevant to the atheists in this thread.

Stalin had a mustache. I have also have a mustache (along with a beard); why didn't you take that angle? It would be just as relevant to our shared motives as our shared atheism is.

Certainly not. People who are religious also have varying beliefs about things like politics and economics, and justifications of any action, especially strong action like confiscating property, denying rights, imprisoning, and executing people NEVER have just one origin.

So... you agree that modern atheists you bump into who advocate things like secularism (i.e. advocating no special treatment OR persecution on the basis of religion), freethought (i.e. upholding the right of people not to have beliefs forced on them), and humanism (i.e. acknowledging that all people have intrinsic value and are worthy of respect)
might not be motivated to round up you and your family and ship them off to prison?

There were and are many communists who strongly disagree/d with the beliefs and actions of Stalin, Mao, etc. There are many theists who embrace/d actions against members of other religions, and against atheists--and in most every case, there are related political and economic motivations. They can't be separated, but each contributes. The examples of Stalin, Mao, etc., are examples of one kind of atheism contributing to the persecution, including death, of religious people and their organizations, along with political and economic (and social, and...). To excuse their stated beliefs and behaviors as "not being atheistic" is not reflective of reality--atheism was definitely a part of their reasoning for their actions.

I'm not sure where to start with this. Stalin's regime may have discouraged theism - and therefore been "atheistic", but calling it "one kind of atheism" is as much of a mistake in thinking as calling a red car "one kind of the colour red" and trying to link this with other red objects (watch out for that red hat! Red can be dangerous - my cousin was run over by a red Chevy!).

 

[leibowde84]

You aren't, but if someone says "God did it".... any debater/arguer wishing to pursue will want physical exoteric evidence/support that "God did it" in which there is none. It's why it is a logical fallacy to begin with, and there is no support for that... there is no physical exoteric evidence that will meet the demands.

Which is why the very claim that "God did it" is an unsubstantiated one, not fit for rational discourse. There is nothing problem with faith of this kind, but it is irritating when people refuse to acknowledge that belief is not knowledge/fact.