God of gaps

[Orlion]

So, I think we're all familiar with the term "God of gaps," but that won't stop me from defining it anyway. It means, basically, that things that we do not understand are attributed to God, for example, if I don't understand how electricity flows, I might make the claim that the lights turn on when I hit the switch because God wills it.

The point is that often times, some apologists will appeal to the order and grandeur of creation as proof of the existence of a God. To them, you need only look at the order with which the stars and planets and oceans, etc. move to see that there must be some intelligence behind it. I view this as a "God of gaps" scenario, though I am not certain of it. My point being that order that we observe could just as easily be proof of natural laws as it is of an intelligent designer.

So, first of all, is this an example of a God of gaps? Is there a way to formulate this idea so it is not? And, to give this topic a long shelve life, what is the morality of using "God of gaps" arguments? Are there pros and cons? Is it always unsound or could it be used effectively and reasonably in an argument?

[aliantha]

Sorry. Can't resist.

[Orlion]

That's alright, I enjoyed it thoroughly, and it's a good example on the topic.

[SoulBiter]

Sorry. Can't resist.

Incredible.. Looks like project planning where I work.

[Cybrweez]

soulbiter, great line.

orlion, I see what you mean. Just some thoughts. It may be used as proof, but is it still sought after 'how'. A slight difference from those who use God of gaps to restrict any thought or search into those topics. So, I don't know how electicity flows, its of God, but in mean time, I'll try to find out. Then, I come to understand how it flows, and thank God He created it.

I'm reminded of science, which has its own 'God of gaps', which is 'we haven't found it yet'.

[Fist and Faith]

I don't think Orlion's original post is an example of TotG. Gravity, and whatever other forces, is the answer to the movements of the stars, oceans. Electricity flows because of the negative charge of all the electrons. GotG is the answer to how it is that gravity and charges exist.

I'm reminded of science, which has its own 'God of gaps', which is 'we haven't found it yet'.

"We haven't found it yet" is the same as "We don't know yet." Which is very different from "It is God."

And, before you say it, no, "yet" does not mean I expect I will find it. I means I haven't stopped looking.

Which brings me back to this:

:The worst thing imaginable would be the loss of the best thing imaginable. Therefore, earnestly seek the best thing imaginable, whether you are certain it exists or not.

The best thing imaginable is knowledge of everything. We'll never achieve it, so there's no danger of losing it. But the worst thing imaginable would be if we stopped striving for it. Striving is what we do best. Even if we never find the answer to a question like how the universe came to be, we should, and will, keep looking. We can't help ourselves. And, while we're "wasting our time" trying to answer the unanswerable (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is unanswerable), we'll find LOTS of other cool stuff!

[Xar]

And, while we're "wasting our time" trying to answer the unanswerable (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is unanswerable), we'll find LOTS of other cool stuff!

Too true... Why, while trying to answer the unanswerable, I found the keys I had lost before! (sorry, couldn't help it - Fist left himself wide open there! )

[Avatar]

Xar.

I don't think Orlion's original post is an example of TotG. Gravity, and whatever other forces, is the answer to the movements of the stars, oceans. Electricity flows because of the negative charge of all the electrons. GotG is the answer to how it is that gravity and charges exist.

Yes, but before we found out about gravity and negative charges, then GotG was an answer. Just like before we found out about pretty much anything. It was even the answer before people believed in god, except then it was spirits or whatever.

--A

[rusmeister]

"The Missing Link" in evolution is another great example of a gap supported by faith.
On wikipedia it has been cleverly redirected to "transitional fossils", which focuses on what has been discovered, and simply ignores what hasn't.

This sentence from the page really sums it up for me:

The sequence of diagrams shows how an apparent "missing link" or gap between species in the fossil record may become filled as more fossil discoveries are made.

Talk about faith in finding it!

I think it really notable how desperately they try to play down the term "missing link", which still remains the most accurate description of what is being talked about - only it reveals the fatal weakness of faith in the whole concept. A euphemism has been found to cover that gap of faith.

Everyone needs to believe in something. I wouldn't believe in anything if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood ring!

Steve Martin

[Orlion]

"The Missing Link" in evolution is another great example of a gap supported by faith.
On wikipedia it has been cleverly redirected to "transitional fossils", which focuses on what has been discovered, and simply ignores what hasn't.

This sentence from the page really sums it up for me:

The sequence of diagrams shows how an apparent "missing link" or gap between species in the fossil record may become filled as more fossil discoveries are made.

Talk about faith in finding it!

I think it really notable how desperately they try to play down the term "missing link", which still remains the most accurate description of what is being talked about - only it reveals the fatal weakness of faith in the whole concept. A euphemism has been found to cover that gap of faith.

Everyone needs to believe in something. I wouldn't believe in anything if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood ring!

Steve Martin

I'd like to expound on this idea. All scientific theory (at least, the good kind) has the characteristic of being able to predict things. Therefore, with Molecular bonding theory, I should be able to predict if two molecules will bond, with evolutionary theory, I should be able to predict what type of animal I will find in what geological level. Experiments are then performed to verify these predictions, and if they do, it strengthens our confidence in the theory. However, one might say that we still exercise faith in these theories that they will continue to be useful in making accurate and precise predictions. So, I've used the term 'faith,' but is there a better term? Can it really be faith if it is supported by the confidence that comes with experimental verification.

Ultimately, I'm just trying to steer the discussion away from a debate on the differences between transitional fossils and missing links and whether or not such things exist and/or are important. That's not what this forum is about And as a clarification, this isn't a criticism of rus' post, which is a, dare I say, transitional post to the one I made (though maybe not the missing link Dangit, focus, Orlion! This is the type of posting you want to avoid!).

[rusmeister]

"The Missing Link" in evolution is another great example of a gap supported by faith.
On wikipedia it has been cleverly redirected to "transitional fossils", which focuses on what has been discovered, and simply ignores what hasn't.

This sentence from the page really sums it up for me:

The sequence of diagrams shows how an apparent "missing link" or gap between species in the fossil record may become filled as more fossil discoveries are made.

Talk about faith in finding it!

I think it really notable how desperately they try to play down the term "missing link", which still remains the most accurate description of what is being talked about - only it reveals the fatal weakness of faith in the whole concept. A euphemism has been found to cover that gap of faith.

Everyone needs to believe in something. I wouldn't believe in anything if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood ring!

Steve Martin

I'd like to expound on this idea. All scientific theory (at least, the good kind) has the characteristic of being able to predict things. Therefore, with Molecular bonding theory, I should be able to predict if two molecules will bond, with evolutionary theory, I should be able to predict what type of animal I will find in what geological level. Experiments are then performed to verify these predictions, and if they do, it strengthens our confidence in the theory. However, one might say that we still exercise faith in these theories that they will continue to be useful in making accurate and precise predictions. So, I've used the term 'faith,' but is there a better term? Can it really be faith if it is supported by the confidence that comes with experimental verification.

Ultimately, I'm just trying to steer the discussion away from a debate on the differences between transitional fossils and missing links and whether or not such things exist and/or are important. That's not what this forum is about And as a clarification, this isn't a criticism of rus' post, which is a, dare I say, transitional post to the one I made (though maybe not the missing link Dangit, focus, Orlion! This is the type of posting you want to avoid!).

I'd say that it is certainly faith in the existence of links that are actually missing - it is precisely the kind of argument used against faith. Why should the believer be denied the gap between faith and evidence, but the evolutionist allowed to maintain and camouflage it? I believe in the validity of faith, but let's at least admit that it IS faith.

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."

On the assumption of that evolutionary connection (a connection
which I am not in the least concerned to deny), the really arresting
and remarkable fact is the comparative absence of any such remains
recording that connection at that point. The sincerity of Darwin
really admitted this; and that is how we came to use such a term
as the Missing Link. But the dogmatism of Darwinians has been too
strong for the agnosticism of Darwin; and men have insensibly fallen
into turning this entirely negative term into a positive image.
They talk of searching for the habits and habitat of the Missing Link;
as if one were to talk of being on friendly terms with the gap
in a narrative or the hole in an argument, of taking a walk with
a non-sequitur or dining with an undistributed middle.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.txt

[aliantha]

Erm. Scientists quit calling it the Missing Link because it turned out there was more than one evolutionary step between the earliest humans and modern humans. So "Missing Link", singular, became a misnomer.

</pedantry>

[rusmeister]

Erm. Scientists quit calling it the Missing Link because it turned out there was more than one evolutionary step between the earliest humans and modern humans. So "Missing Link", singular, became a misnomer.

</pedantry>

That only turns "missing link" into "missing links". That's not misnomer. It's the "transitional" fossils that they DON'T have that is the entire point - and the misnomer. Believers in evolution have faith that they are out there, somewhere or that they at least existed). The interesting thing is the effort poured into squashing the term "missing link", which remains the most accurate term.

[aliantha]

Well, "Missing Link" is certainly a *catchy* term...

And won't you look silly when they finally *do* find those missing links...

[rusmeister]

Well, "Missing Link" is certainly a *catchy* term...

And won't you look silly when they finally *do* find those missing links...

I don't see why. I don't claim to know that evolution is false. I simply strongly doubt it, most especially human evolution. The whole point is that even if they ever do find the missing links, so that they are no longer missing, the truth will remain that in their search for them, people exercised, not scientific reasoning about them, but speculation and faith. Why don't I speak about the missing God?
Once we admit the purely hypothetical aspect of missing links, any aspect of evolutionary theory connected to them comes crashing back down from the lofty theory treated as proven fact to the humble hypothesis.

[Xar]

Well, "Missing Link" is certainly a *catchy* term...

And won't you look silly when they finally *do* find those missing links...

I don't see why. I don't claim to know that evolution is false. I simply strongly doubt it, most especially human evolution. The whole point is that even if they ever do find the missing links, so that they are no longer missing, the truth will remain that in their search for them, people exercised, not scientific reasoning about them, but speculation and faith. Why don't I speak about the missing God?
Once we admit the purely hypothetical aspect of missing links, any aspect of evolutionary theory connected to them comes crashing back down from the lofty theory treated as proven fact to the humble hypothesis.

The difference here, Rus, is that scientists didn't come up with the Missing Link idea by waking up one morning and thinking "oh, that's a cool thought I had!" or by having a disheveled man showing up at their doorstep claiming that he saw it in a vision. They came to the conclusion that the missing link should exist by formulating a theory based on evidence, then seeking out additional evidence which would PROVE or DISPROVE the theory. Thus far, all evidence has continued to prove the theory correct, so we keep searching. The main difference with faith is that the faithful don't need evidence to believe whatever it is they believe in; in fact, they even claim that evidence destroys faith, because you cannot have faith in something you know exists. And the faithful don't actively look for evidence which would disprove their own beliefs. Scientists do - it's called the scientific method. A dogma (which can be a theory, a model for how certain things work) endures only until someone challenges it by finding something which does not "fit in", and this sparks a revolution in thought which leads to a new, more comprehensive theory, which in itself endures only until someone comes up with a new piece of evidence. All this evidence is rigorously tested and analyzed, and "repeatability" is the keyword here: experiments which cannot be repeated are useless to science.

[Loredoctor]

Erm. Scientists quit calling it the Missing Link because it turned out there was more than one evolutionary step between the earliest humans and modern humans. So "Missing Link", singular, became a misnomer.

</pedantry>

That only turns "missing link" into "missing links". That's not misnomer. It's the "transitional" fossils that they DON'T have that is the entire point - and the misnomer. Believers in evolution have faith that they are out there, somewhere or that they at least existed). The interesting thing is the effort poured into squashing the term "missing link", which remains the most accurate term.

I do not get it, Rusmeister. Why is it valid to question evolution - not that I am against questioning the findings of science, because that is how further discoveries are made - and not valid to question one's own beliefs? If there is a supposed flaw in evolution, why do you not question where God came from? Surely he could not have existed forever?

It's the one thing that astounds me - religious folk who criticise science's findings but suddenly stop their critical thinking when it comes to their own beliefs.

[rusmeister]

Erm. Scientists quit calling it the Missing Link because it turned out there was more than one evolutionary step between the earliest humans and modern humans. So "Missing Link", singular, became a misnomer.

</pedantry>

That only turns "missing link" into "missing links". That's not misnomer. It's the "transitional" fossils that they DON'T have that is the entire point - and the misnomer. Believers in evolution have faith that they are out there, somewhere or that they at least existed). The interesting thing is the effort poured into squashing the term "missing link", which remains the most accurate term.

I do not get it, Rusmeister. Why is it valid to question evolution - not that I am against questioning the findings of science, because that is how further discoveries are made - and not valid to question one's own beliefs? If there is a supposed flaw in evolution, why do you not question where God came from? Surely he could not have existed forever?

It's the one thing that astounds me - religious folk who criticise science's findings but suddenly stop their critical thinking when it comes to their own beliefs.

Hi guys!
I'm in a squeeze for posting time, esp. during the work week, but...
I don't even suggest that one should not question one's own beliefs, LM, so yes, go right ahead and question everything. But if you arrive at definitive answers, is not your question answered? Why then should I go on asking it? I have questioned my beliefs, and the ones I hold now I arrived at less than 7 years ago. I hold them precisely because I have questioned them, and found my lazy agnosticism to be the thing severely wanting.

I've answered your last question at least 50 times in my posting with Fist - at some point everyone must accept some form of mystical dogma or other. The idea of a Big Bang requires just as mystical an acceptance of some eternally pre-existing matter, or an equally mystical eternal chain of cause and effect. My objection is when people pretend that all aspects of their beliefs are 100% rational, when in fact they are not. Everybody has bottom-line dogmas that they do not in fact question, and the worst kind is the one that is not aware of what those dogmas are. (The best, of course, have questioned them, but have arrived at definite convictions, a phenomenon I call "postjudice".)

[Xar]

That only turns "missing link" into "missing links". That's not misnomer. It's the "transitional" fossils that they DON'T have that is the entire point - and the misnomer. Believers in evolution have faith that they are out there, somewhere or that they at least existed). The interesting thing is the effort poured into squashing the term "missing link", which remains the most accurate term.

I do not get it, Rusmeister. Why is it valid to question evolution - not that I am against questioning the findings of science, because that is how further discoveries are made - and not valid to question one's own beliefs? If there is a supposed flaw in evolution, why do you not question where God came from? Surely he could not have existed forever?

It's the one thing that astounds me - religious folk who criticise science's findings but suddenly stop their critical thinking when it comes to their own beliefs.

Hi guys!
I'm in a squeeze for posting time, esp. during the work week, but...
I don't even suggest that one should not question one's own beliefs, LM, so yes, go right ahead and question everything. But if you arrive at definitive answers, is not your question answered? Why then should I go on asking it? I have questioned my beliefs, and the ones I hold now I arrived at less than 7 years ago. I hold them precisely because I have questioned them, and found my lazy agnosticism to be the thing severely wanting.

I've answered your last question at least 50 times in my posting with Fist - at some point everyone must accept some form of mystical dogma or other. The idea of a Big Bang requires just as mystical an acceptance of some eternally pre-existing matter, or an equally mystical eternal chain of cause and effect. My objection is when people pretend that all aspects of their beliefs are 100% rational, when in fact they are not. Everybody has bottom-line dogmas that they do not in fact question, and the worst kind is the one that is not aware of what those dogmas are. (The best, of course, have questioned them, but have arrived at definite convictions, a phenomenon I call "postjudice".)

Your argument presupposes that, to take you on that example, astrophysicists came up with the Big Bang theory and then said "ok, that's it for this field". Not so! There are two important points that your theory doesn't take into account:

1) These scientists reached the point in which they postulated their theory not based on what the mailman told them or on the dream one of them had one night, but based on rigorous scientific observation of universal phenomena and by backtracking them to the beginning of the universe. Even so, the Big Bang theory was long disputed until enough evidence accumulated to make it extremely likely.

2) The fact that they reached this conclusion doesn't mean they stopped searching. Scientists are STILL testing the validity of the Big Bang theory, and if they found enough evidence that, say, they were wrong before and steady state seems a more likely explanation for what we see in the universe, you can bet they'd accept THAT theory instead. For that matter - even if we're never going to be able to see the instant of the Big Bang, that doesn't mean they aren't TRYING to do so. And all this is done in scientific fashion - with experiments which must be REPRODUCIBLE. Science isn't based on accidental discoveries which cannot be reproduced! See what happens when a scientist CLAIMS he made a discovery, and then that discovery cannot be reproduced by others! Off the top of my head, two examples come to mind: the physicists who claimed they had discovered cold fusion, several years ago, and the South Korean scientist who claimed he had perfected the cloning techniques, had cloned a dog and even cloned human cell lines. The latter was in 2005-6, and he made the headlines around the world - both for his discovery, and for the revelation that he had faked it. These are examples of what happens in science when you try to bypass the scientific scrutiny of your peers.

Objectively, religion isn't like that. If a person says he's been visited by God, there is no objective proof to show that it is so; he could be hallucinating or he could be ill, for all I know. Similarly, I cannot objectively be sure that what is written on the Bible is the message of a higher being. This is where faith comes in: you either choose to believe in all this, even though there is no empirical, reproducible proof that your belief is correct, or you choose not to.

In fact, the whole point of faith is to believe in something which cannot be demonstrably true or false; scientific certainty is anathema to faith (but this doesn't mean they cannot coexist as long as neither tries to intrude upon the other).

[Avatar]

...This is where faith comes in: you either choose to believe in all this, even though there is no empirical, reproducible proof that your belief is correct, or you choose not to.

In fact, the whole point of faith is to believe in something which cannot be demonstrably true or false; scientific certainty is anathema to faith (but this doesn't mean they cannot coexist as long as neither tries to intrude upon the other).

Excellently said Xar. Makes me think of the idea that God can't prove that he exists, because then you wouldn't have to believe in him any more. The entire need for faith would be negated.

--A