The God of the Gaps Argument

[viole]

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 am usually not very severe with the GOTG argument because I think resorting to gaps is ubiquitous in human cognition. Scientists use that too. Black matter and enery come to mind.

My main contention is that it does not tell you to what God to believe in. If one had enough evidence that Jesus, or whomever, is God, it would not need gaps or additional proof arguments to justify her belief. She would just show evidence that Jesus resurrected from death, or performed miracles, and therefore God exists.

In other words, the God of the gaps argument is just for people who are not sure that the supernatural claims they subscribe to offer enough evidence to support their beliefs. Which is,again,self defeating towards choosing the right god.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your atheism is a belief, not an absence of a belief. I'm pretty sure this can be proved scientifically, and would be confirmed by a neuroscientist.

And people's beliefs regarding the likely non-existence of god certainly motivates a lot of people on this forum.

I find the intense desire of some atheists to deny their atheism constitutes a belief bizarre. It is completely inconsequential.

Many atheists hold beliefs about the non-existence of gods. This isn't what makes them atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

I see, and any action by any religion or state that cites religion as a reason for doing something is ONLY doing in the name of religion?

Stalin was not acting in the name of any atheism, explicitly. That is my point. Otoh, religious groups DO act in the name of their religious beliefs explicitly. Stalin was fighting for Russia, not for atheism. Extremist groups from various religious traditions explicitly say that they are fighting for those groups. For example, ISIS explicitly claims to be "fighting for Islam". Stalin never made the claim that he was "fighting for Atheism".

 

[leibowde84]

I am usually not very severe with the GOTG argument because I think resorting to gaps is ubiquitous in human cognition. Scientists use that too. Black matter and enery come to mind.

This seems unfair. Scientists have no problem admitting that they don't know much about dark matter and energy. They admit freely that the only thing they know is that it exists. They are continually trying to find out more about it, but for now, it's a mystery. God of the Gaps arguments, on the other hand, make the assumption that scientific understanding is now and will be forever limited in a specific way. That is very different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, but this attitude is frequently wheeled out and needs to be corrected.

Atheism was an absolute fundamental principle of Soviet Communism. It wasn't a little add on to further political ambitions, it was as central to their ideology as God is to jihadis.

And when you have organisations called 'The League of Militant Atheists', it is hard to argue that they weren't doing it in the name of atheism.

There's a whole thread somewhere full of communist political theory that supports this view.

Stalin was more of a pragmatist though and willingly abandoned this ideology when it suited him and he needed the Church to help during WW2.

You're a Christian, right? I'm not only an atheist; I'm an anti-theist. I propose a game. Here's how it will work:

- we start a new thread where we outline our beliefs.
- each of us asks questions to clarify the other's beliefs as needed.
- the first one who can make a logical inference from the other's beliefs to justify an abhorrent act wins.

Rules:

1. The inference must be logically valid, and must take into account all of the other person's beliefs.

2. (Exception to 1) If the other person's stated beliefs contradict each other, the inference only has to take into account one side of the contradiction. Participants should ask questions to confirm that an apparent contradiction really is a contradiction.

Are you in?

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry, but this attitude is frequently wheeled out and needs to be corrected.

Atheism was an absolute fundamental principle of Soviet Communism. It wasn't a little add on to further political ambitions, it was as central to their ideology as God is to jihadis.

And when you have organisations called 'The League of Militant Atheists', it is hard to argue that they weren't doing it in the name of atheism.

There's a whole thread somewhere full of communist political theory that supports this view.

Stalin was more of a pragmatist though and willingly abandoned this ideology when it suited him and he needed the Church to help during WW2.

Stalin wasn't a member of that group, and he did not agree with their attempts to forcefully destroy religion:

"The debate on how to best exterminate religion was argued among the Soviet leadership, until in the late 1920s and early 1930s, when it was resolved by Stalin who condemned the extremes of both sides, and Yaroslavsky followed suit. The do-nothing approach of the rightists who thought religion would die away naturally and the leftist approach to attack all forms of religion as class enemies were both condemned as deviations from the party line. Yaroslavsky argued against the leftists (who had earlier criticized him) that if religion was simply a class phenomenon there would be no need to combat it if a classless society was truly being produced. He affirmed that an all-sided attack on religion was needed, but did not subscribe to the leftist deviation that had been condemned."

 

[leibowde84]

You're a Christian, right? I'm not only an atheist; I'm an anti-theist. I propose a game. Here's how it will work:

- we start a new thread where we outline our beliefs.
- each of us asks questions to clarify the other's beliefs as needed.
- the first one who can make a logical inference from the other's beliefs to justify an abhorrent act wins.

Rules:

1. The inference must be logically valid, and must take into account all of the other person's beliefs.

2. (Exception to 1) If the other person's stated beliefs contradict each other, the inference only has to take into account one side of the contradiction. Participants should ask questions to confirm that an apparent contradiction really is a contradiction.

Are you in?

Sounds intriguing and valuable.

 

[viole]

This seems unfair. Scientists have no problem admitting that they don't know much about dark matter and energy. They admit freely that the only thing they know is that it exists. They are continually trying to find out more about it, but for now, it's a mystery. God of the Gaps arguments, on the other hand, make the assumption that scientific understanding is now and will be forever limited in a specific way. That is very different.

I am not adrressing our ignorance about them, i am adressing our assumption that they exist. There is no evidence that they do. It could be that our theories are not correct and better theories can do without them. The old aether theory should remind us how fast we can assume wrong conclusions.

My contention here is that I would not be surprised if things like dark energy or dark matter do not exist at all.

We have our theories and we suddenly see that they do not work everywhere. They work only if we assume the existence of something invisible that can still salvage our beloved theories. Could be true. Could be false.

But that looks like a pretty big gap covering exercise. Which will remain a gap until we know more.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

Your atheism is a belief, not an absence of a belief. I'm pretty sure this can be proved scientifically, and would be confirmed by a neuroscientist.

I will take that bet. Although I do have some belief that theism is enabled or even caused by bicammeralism of the brain.

And people's beliefs regarding the likely non-existence of god certainly motivates a lot of people on this forum.

To clarify matters and to defend their personal space. Not to commit violence "in the name of the absence of god" or any such nonsense.

In that respect, theism can't fairly be compared with atheism.

I find the intense desire of some atheists to deny their atheism constitutes a belief bizarre. It is completely inconsequential.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[leibowde84]

My contention here is that I would not be surprised if things like dark energy or dark matter do not exist at all.

I'm not sure this could be the case. There is something that alters the way that spiral clusters, galaxies, etc. behave in regards to gravitational pulls. Whatever it is that is effecting these things has been deemed "dark matter"/"dark energy". So, whatever we find in the future can accurately be deemed "dark matter/energy", as it is about as vague as a scientific term can get.

 

[Augustus]

However, it was not derived from atheism, since atheism itself leads to no other conclusions than a lack of belief in gods.

Of course it was derived from atheism (to base a concept on an extension or modification of another concept)

You are making the argument that just because atheism doesn't necessarily lead to any other conclusion, that it cannot be the basis for reaching another conclusion.

Just because something isn't true for all atheists then it can't be applied to any.

If you reject belief in God this is not a viewpoint that exists in a vacuum completely disconnected from any other consequence.

In a world where belief in god exists and influences people profoundly, holding the idea that this is based on a fiction creates a need for further further beliefs that result from atheism.

Are you in?

Hehe I get 'converted' frequently here (despite my 'religion' being 'none' on my profile). This week I've been a Muslim and a Christian

It would be but it will be pretty pointless because I'm just as much of an atheist as you are. I'm just not an anti-theist (actually I used to be one but got reasoned out of it some years back). Our beliefs in general are probably 98% the same though. I'll guess (might be wrong) that what we differ in is you see religion as harmful, I see it as neutral. You believe in moral progress, I don't. You believe that 'science' and reason are intrinsically positive, I view them as morally neutral (capable of bringing both benefits or harms).

 

[leibowde84]

Of course it was derived from atheism (to base a concept on an extension or modification of another concept)

You are making the argument that just because atheism doesn't necessarily lead to any other conclusion, that it cannot be the basis for reaching another conclusion.

Just because something isn't true for all atheists then it can't be applied to any.

If you reject belief in God this is not a viewpoint that exists in a vacuum completely disconnected from any other consequence.

In a world where belief in god exists and influences people profoundly, holding the idea that this is based on a fiction creates a need for further further beliefs that result from atheism.



Hehe I get 'converted' frequently here (despite my 'religion' being 'none' on my profile). This week I've been a Muslim and a Christian

I would be but it will be pretty pointless because I'm just as much of an atheist as you are. I'm just not an anti-theist (actually I used to be one but got reasoned out of it some years back). Our beliefs in general are probably 98% the same though. I'll guess (might be wrong) that what we differ in is you see religion as harmful, I see it as neutral. You believe in moral progress, I don't. You believe that 'science' and reason are intrinsically positive, I view them as morally neutral (capable of bringing both benefits or harms).

But, in this context, religious beliefs can be the conclusion.

 

[viole]

I'm not sure this could be the case. There is something that alters the way that spiral clusters, galaxies, etc. behave in regards to gravitational pulls. Whatever it is that is effecting these things has been deemed "dark matter"/"dark energy". So, whatever we find in the future can accurately be deemed "dark matter/energy", as it is about as vague as a scientific term can get.

Probably, but I am skeptical. It could be that the laws of gravitation are incomplete. Who can say? We assume they are not, and then we have a gap. An unavoidable one.

Having a gap does not entail that it cannot be filled, with or without evidence of black matter. The truth is that currently it is filled with things that have no evidence of existing, apart from having being introduced ad-hoc in order to salvage our cosmological framework.

So, how is that different from the god of the gaps?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Probably, but I am skeptical. It could be that the laws of gravitation are incomplete. Who can say? We assume they are not, and then we have a gap. An unavoidable one.

Having a gap does not entail that it cannot be filled, with or without evidence of black matter. The truth is that currently it is filled with things that have no evidence of existing, apart from having being introduced ad-hoc in order to salvage our cosmological framework.

So, how is that different from the god of the gaps?

Ciao

- viole

Because it isn't used in the same way. If they claimed that our lack of evidence for God proved that God doesn't exist, that would be the same. But, dark matter is basically a placeholder for future discoveries. And, scientists constantly try to disprove theories of this kind which leads to progress. God of the gaps is a fallacious argument that gets us nowhere.

 

[Sunstone]

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

Nonsense! If atheism itself logically and necessarily led to sending people to the gulags, then you specify exactly how it did so. But that you cannot do.

 

[Augustus]

I will take that bet. Although I do have some belief that theism is enabled or even caused by bicammeralism of the brain.

I'll guess you have an absence of belief as regards the capital of Central Sulawesi as you are probably unaware of its existence as an administrative region (capital is Poso btw).

Now you have a belief as regards the capital of Central Sulawesi (you're wrong though as it is actually Palu)

That's the difference between an absence of belief and a belief.You now either believe it is Poso, Palu, that it's neither, that you simply don't know or perhaps that you are unsure if Central Sulawesi is a real place. You can't have an absence of belief any more though.

You can only have an absence of belief in something you are unaware of. Things you are aware of exist as beliefs.

To clarify matters and to defend their personal space. Not to commit violence "in the name of the absence of god" or any such nonsense.

In that respect, theism can't fairly be compared with atheism.

If theism is simply the belief that one of more gods exist, it has no more (or less) logical consequence than atheism.

Theism/atheism are beliefs. Religions are ideologies.

 

[Augustus]

Nonsense! If atheism itself logically and necessarily led to sending people to the gulags, then you specify exactly how it did so. But that you cannot do.

The argument is logically but not necessarily.

Just like belief in a single omnipotent god can logically, but not necessarily, lead to persecution of infidels.

 

[viole]

Because it isn't used in the same way. If they claimed that our lack of evidence for God proved that God doesn't exist, that would be the same. But, dark matter is basically a placeholder for future discoveries. And, scientists constantly try to disprove theories of this kind which leads to progress. God of the gaps is a fallacious argument that gets us nowhere.

Excellent. I am apparently very bad at playing angel's advocate. Lol.

I think the central point is that scientists do not use the gap to prove that black matter MUST exist. They just give priority to well estabilished theories before throwing them into the garbage bin of history. Which is probably the rational thing to do, as long as it does not last forever.

So, now that a theist showed a naturalist that the god of the gap argument is not tenable, what is next?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Excellent. I am apparently very bad at playing angel's advocate. Lol.

I think the central point is that scientists do not use the gap to prove that black matter MUST exist. They just give priority to well estabilished theories before throwing them into the garbage bin of history. Which is probably the rational thing to do, as long as it does not last forever.

So, now that a theist showed a naturalist that the god of the gap argument is not tenable, what is next?

Ciao

- viole

Haha ... I don't know. World peace?

 

[Sunstone]

The argument is logically but not necessarily.

Just like belief in a single omnipotent god can logically, but not necessarily, lead to persecution of infidels.

I don't know what definition of "logic" you used in the above sentences. None that makes any sense to me.

Deductive logic, if valid, entails it's conclusion necessarily.