What gaps are there left?

[an anarchist]

God of gaps.

Attributing unexplainable phenomenons to God.

What gaps in knowledge are there left?

I can think of three.

What is consciousness?
And
Why is the laws of physics set up the way it is? (I'm not sure how to exactly frame this question but I think you guys will know what I mean)
And
Where did the matter of the universe come from?

Do you think if these questions are answered from a scientific perspective, it would fundamentally change people's idea of a creator god?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do you think if these questions are answered from a scientific perspective, it would fundamentally change people's idea of a creator god?

I actually think there's a high likelihood it would.

But, people are also people. Some may choose their holy scriptures over the scientific explanation - for better or worse.

 

[ChristineM]

What is consciousness?

The state of being aware of your surroundings.

Why is the laws of physics set up the way it is?

The laws of physics are not "set up" they are observations

Where did the matter of the universe come from?

Ah, now that is a question

Though some people are incapable of accepting whatever goes against their beliefs

 

[Heyo]

God of gaps.

Attributing unexplainable phenomenons to God.

What gaps in knowledge are there left?

I can think of three.

What is consciousness?
And
Why is the laws of physics set up the way it is? (I'm not sure how to exactly frame this question but I think you guys will know what I mean)
And
Where did the matter of the universe come from?

Do you think if these questions are answered from a scientific perspective, it would fundamentally change people's idea of a creator god?

#4 How does abiogenesis work - or doesn't it?

The way science works, it always creates two new questions for every one answered. So there will always be gaps. But the gaps get smaller and so the gods have to get smaller to fit in them.

 

[Quintessence]

I really just don't understand this "gods of the gaps" notion.

It seems to me the folks who go on about it are making a lot of assumptions about the human capacity for knowledge that, in of themselves, aren't actually knowns. Depending on your epistemological stance, human knowledge ranges from "actually, we don't know squat" to "actually, we're omniscient." The short of it is the "gaps" are wherever you believe there are gaps.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The state of being aware of your surroundings.

Going to disagree with this one, a little bit. I think consciousness -- the way that philosophers tend to worry about it -- is being aware of your awareness.

An unconscious entity could, in principle, react to an observation through an entirely programmed response mechanism, without ever having been what we would call "aware" that it has done so.

 

[vulcanlogician]

What is consciousness?
And
Why is the laws of physics set up the way it is? (I'm not sure how to exactly frame this question but I think you guys will know what I mean)
And
Where did the matter of the universe come from?

We may or may not be able to discover satisfying or conclusive answers to those questions. Maybe we will manage to answer one or two of them scientifically.

But this much is certain, so long as there's a gap in our knowledge, someone's gonna try to stuff a god into it.

 

[Quintessence]

A second thing I just do not understand about this "god of the gaps" notion aside from the epistemological problem.

Having a non-divine explanatory paradigm for understanding something doesn't negate divinity in any way. Knowing Sun is a ball of hydrogen gas doesn't make Sun any less of a god, or an aspect of our world worthy of worship (I mean, our planet literally revolves around it and we wouldn't exist without Them - dunno how much more worthy of worship something can get than that). I don't get the "oh, we can explain it this way now, I guess we don't have to pay our respects or do that celebrating no more!" Er... wut?

Sorry, probably should just make my own thread about this or something... "god of the gaps" doesn't even make sense from a theological standpoint...

 

[Thea]

… Do you think if these questions are answered from a scientific perspective, it would fundamentally change people's idea of a creator god?

Not for me. I believe in a “creator God” for entirely different reasons (basically it makes my life more pleasant).

 

[JDMS]

A second thing I just do not understand about this "god of the gaps" notion aside from the epistemological problem.

Having a non-divine explanatory paradigm for understanding something doesn't negate divinity in any way. Knowing Sun is a ball of hydrogen gas doesn't make Sun any less of a god, or an aspect of our world worthy of worship (I mean, our planet literally revolves around it and we wouldn't exist without Them - dunno how much more worthy of worship something can get than that). I don't get the "oh, we can explain it this way now, I guess we don't have to pay our respects or do that celebrating no more!" Er... wut?

Sorry, probably should just make my own thread about this or something... "god of the gaps" doesn't even make sense from a theological standpoint...

I guess if you want to stretch the definition of the word "god", than yes, the sun can be a god. And I suppose you can worship an inanimate object without expecting anything from it, too.

But knowing that the sun is a ball of gas completely lacking in sentience, agency, or personality DOES change many religious outlooks of the world. It does reduce divinity, by the normal sense of the world. We can move goalposts and change definitions, but discovery about the universe absolutely do change faith.

I don't get the "oh, we can explain it this way now, I guess we don't have to pay our respects or do that celebrating no more!"

Different people have different capacities for outward expression of gratitude. Not everyone is interested in "thanking" anything. If someone only cared about a sun god because they wanted their crops to grow, why would they continue worshipping the sun if they found out the sun isn't alive, doesn't care, and can't answer prayer? Now obviously some people are full of gratitude, faith or not, but not everyone is.

 

[Quintessence]

I guess if you want to stretch the definition of the word "god", than yes, the sun can be a god.

List of solar deities - Wikipedia

Yes, it's "stretching" the definition of gods to acknowledge Sun is one of the most widely worshipped things throughout human history. Sure. M'kay.

 

[We Never Know]

God of gaps.

Attributing unexplainable phenomenons to God.

What gaps in knowledge are there left?

I can think of three.

What is consciousness?
And
Why is the laws of physics set up the way it is? (I'm not sure how to exactly frame this question but I think you guys will know what I mean)
And
Where did the matter of the universe come from?

Do you think if these questions are answered from a scientific perspective, it would fundamentally change people's idea of a creator god?

"What is consciousness?"

We aren't quite yet sure.

"Why is the laws of physics set up the way it is?"

Are they set or did we set them to our understanding?

"Where did the matter of the universe come from?"

From a tinsy winsy point the size of a pinhead.
(And some people think expansion foam is cool).

 

[JDMS]

List of solar deities - Wikipedia

Yes, it's "stretching" the definition of gods to acknowledge Sun is one of the most widely worshipped things throughout human history. Sure. M'kay.

I think you misunderstood me. I meant it is a stretch to say that the giant ball of gas that is the sun is a god, not that folk ideas about the sun do not fit the criteria.

I'm saying our current scientific understanding of the sun does not fit historical and popular ideas about the definition of "gods". So, to say the sun is a god, yet also understand it on a scientific level, would be stretching the definition of the term "god". Yes, it "creates" and "gives birth to", but whether that fits under the definition of godhood is subjective, and requires some stretching of the term to make most agree with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A second thing I just do not understand about this "god of the gaps" notion aside from the epistemological problem.

Having a non-divine explanatory paradigm for understanding something doesn't negate divinity in any way. Knowing Sun is a ball of hydrogen gas doesn't make Sun any less of a god, or an aspect of our world worthy of worship (I mean, our planet literally revolves around it and we wouldn't exist without Them - dunno how much more worthy of worship something can get than that). I don't get the "oh, we can explain it this way now, I guess we don't have to pay our respects or do that celebrating no more!" Er... wut?

Sorry, probably should just make my own thread about this or something... "god of the gaps" doesn't even make sense from a theological standpoint...

The "god of the gaps" is not actual god. It is a correction when people have an incorrect reason to believe in God. Many believers abuse their God and lower him to a "Step and fetch it" slave.
"I know that God is real because winter comes to an end each year". At one point that could have been an argument for God. But when we realize that the Earth is a globe and the tilt of the axis relative to our orbit is what cause the seasons did that "refute God"? No, it only showed that that was a bad reason to believe in God. God used to be given credit for everything. If it rained God did it. If there was a plague, God did it. Falsely attributing things to God that were not his doing and then finding out that God was not responsible for that left "gaps" in what God did. There are still some science deniers out there that try to put God into every gap in man's knowledge. By putting God where he does not belong that God is getting "smaller and smaller". That is not God that is actually doing that. It is the concept of God.

The God of the Gaps is a warning to those that put their belief into God based upon what he supposedly did. It is not an actual refutation of God, nor was it ever meant to be.

 

[Quintessence]

I think you misunderstood me. I meant it is a stretch to say that the giant ball of gas that is the sun is a god, not that folk ideas about the sun do not fit the criteria.

Fair enough, I suppose. It is worth asking why one think this, or why this would be so. What's the reason? Why would it make any difference what our understanding of the sun is when it comes to deifying it? It's not like something is any less worthy of worship because the human understanding of that thing changed.

Whether or not it is historical or popular doesn't seem relevant to me. There is no reason to limit ourselves to what is historical or popular. And we don't, in practice, as a species. Sure, some humans are conservative, some humans are traditionalist and insist on doing only what is historical. Sure, some humans are hipsters who follow the masses or whatever is popular. But we've never limited ourselves to that; religion isn't set in stone, and neither is our understanding of the gods. It has changed over time, and will continue to do so; theology is as progressive as it is conservative. Certainly, modern Pagans and polytheists like myself don't see a scientific understanding of nature as incompatible with deification of nature.

The gist of what I'm aiming to say is that a scientific understanding of the something need not make it any less gods. Knowing more or knowing differently doesn't erase that; it doesn't have to fundamentally change people's ideas about the gods. The fluid and ever-evolving nature of culture, religion, and knowledge is part of why the whole "gaps" thing is just weird to me, I think. Others milage may vary on this though.

 

[JDMS]

Fair enough, I suppose. It is worth asking why one think this, or why this would be so. What's the reason? Why would it make any difference what our understanding of the sun is when it comes to deifying it? It's not like something is any less worthy of worship because the human understanding of that thing changed.

Whether or not it is historical or popular doesn't seem relevant to me. There is no reason to limit ourselves to what is historical or popular. And we don't, in practice, as a species. Sure, some humans are conservative, some humans are traditionalist and insist on doing only what is historical. Sure, some humans are hipsters who follow the masses or whatever is popular. But we've never limited ourselves to that; religion isn't set in stone, and neither is our understanding of the gods. It has changed over time, and will continue to do so; theology is as progressive as it is conservative. Certainly, modern Pagans and polytheists like myself don't see a scientific understanding of nature as incompatible with deification of nature.

The gist of what I'm aiming to say is that a scientific understanding of the something need not make it any less gods. Knowing more or knowing differently doesn't erase that; it doesn't have to fundamentally change people's ideas about the gods. The fluid and ever-evolving nature of culture, religion, and knowledge is part of why the whole "gaps" thing is just weird to me, I think. Others milage may vary on this though.

I think it's fine for folks to deify the sun or other natural processes even with our current scientific understanding. I think deifying them with these new discoveries is in a way very similar to how certain religions and philosophies already felt about it, so those aspects of it won't completely change. Something as important as the sun is certainly something deserving of respect, if anything is. And the definitions of godhood can certainly change.

But in the end, it's a choice whether folks want to deify it or not. Some may reasonably see it as worthy of worship, and others may see it as an inanimate object, that while incredible, doesn't need to be thanked or praised. I'm guessing you agree with this though... people will always see the world differently.

I think the sun is very cool, and I'm thankful for what it has provided for us, yet at the same time, I understand that the sun isn't alive and can never receive my thanks (from what I believe). So I just don't have an inclination to deify it... no disrespect meant!

 

[We Never Know]

I guess if you want to stretch the definition of the word "god", than yes, the sun can be a god. And I suppose you can worship an inanimate object without expecting anything from it, too.

But knowing that the sun is a ball of gas completely lacking in sentience, agency, or personality DOES change many religious outlooks of the world. It does reduce divinity, by the normal sense of the world. We can move goalposts and change definitions, but discovery about the universe absolutely do change faith.



Different people have different capacities for outward expression of gratitude. Not everyone is interested in "thanking" anything. If someone only cared about a sun god because they wanted their crops to grow, why would they continue worshipping the sun if they found out the sun isn't alive, doesn't care, and can't answer prayer? Now obviously some people are full of gratitude, faith or not, but not everyone is.

"inanimate object"

A star is born, goes through its life cycle, then dies.

We either need to redefine inanimate or the life cycle of stars.

Don't forget life is a chemical reaction..... So is the sun.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We may or may not be able to discover satisfying or conclusive answers to those questions. Maybe we will manage to answer one or two of them scientifically.

But this much is certain, so long as there's a gap in our knowledge, someone's gonna try to stuff a god into it.

Well said.

 

[Quintessence]

"inanimate object"

A star is born, goes through its life cycle, then dies.

We either need to redefine inanimate or the life cycle of stars.

Don't forget life is a chemical reaction..... So is the sun.

Per biological sciences, Sun is "inanimate" so I get the meaning in spite of being an animist who generally agrees with this sentiment. So much is dependent on perspective, isn't it? This morning, the way early morning Sun's rays are hitting the ground is just beautiful. I could ho hum that, or see the poetry and art of it. A god of the gaps would have us believe the divine domain shrinks with every scientific discovery; that something stops being magical or divine when science catalogs it.

Nah. I'll keep my childhood wonder and just keep calling it all awesome and magical.

 

[an anarchist]

A god of the gaps would have us believe the divine domain shrinks with every scientific discovery; that something stops being magical or divine when science catalogs it.

I don't think we are looking at it the same way (which is fine). I think God of gaps is saying that we no longer attribute something working to God because we scientifically understand how it works.

The sun is still magical.