An Amusing Quote About the Origin of the Universe and the God of the Gaps

[Magical Wand]

Hi, peeps!

I'm reading an interesting book about the 'mystery of existence' and I found an amusing quote which is worth sharing here with you. Perhaps it could start some discussion on this topic.

"Science may be able to trace how the current universe evolved from an earlier state of physical reality, even following the process back as far as the Big Bang. But ultimately science hits a wall. It can’t account for the origin of the primal physical state... That, at least, is what diehard defenders [viz., apologists] of the God hypothesis insist. Historically, when science has seemed incapable of explaining some natural phenomenon, religious believers have been quick to invoke a Divine Artificer to fill the gap – only to be embarrassed when science finally succeeds in filling it after all. Newton, for example, thought that God was needed to make little adjustments from time to time in the orbits of the planets to keep them from colliding. But a century later, Laplace proved that physics was quite capable of accounting for the stability of the solar system. (When Napoléon asked Laplace where God was in his celestial scheme, Laplace famously replied, “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”) More recently, religious believers have maintained that blind natural selection alone cannot explain the emergence of complex organisms, so God must be “guiding” the evolutionary process – a contention decisively (and gleefully) refuted by Dawkins and other Darwinians. Such “God of the gaps” arguments, when they concern the minutiae of biology or astrophysics, tend to blow up in the faces of the religious believers who deploy them." (Jim Holt, 'Why Does the World exists?')

Some apologists (e.g., Frank Turek) reply that naturalists do the same thing when they invoke science, ("science will explain this in the future"), and so naturalists commit the "science of the gaps". However, that misses the point of the argument. The problem is that science has a very successful history explaining stuff (as was pointed out in this book) while supernaturalism in general does not. Therefore, we should expect science to explain what we don't understand now. It is a question of which methodology is superior.

Of course, this isn't evidence against theism (I think), but it makes me think that religious apologetics is flawed and should be abandoned.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Hi, peeps!

I'm reading an interesting book about the 'mystery of existence' and I found an amusing quote which is worth sharing here with you. Perhaps it could start some discussion on this topic.

"Science may be able to trace how the current universe evolved from an earlier state of physical reality, even following the process back as far as the Big Bang. But ultimately science hits a wall. It can’t account for the origin of the primal physical state... That, at least, is what diehard defenders [viz., apologists] of the God hypothesis insist. Historically, when science has seemed incapable of explaining some natural phenomenon, religious believers have been quick to invoke a Divine Artificer to fill the gap – only to be embarrassed when science finally succeeds in filling it after all. Newton, for example, thought that God was needed to make little adjustments from time to time in the orbits of the planets to keep them from colliding. But a century later, Laplace proved that physics was quite capable of accounting for the stability of the solar system. (When Napoléon asked Laplace where God was in his celestial scheme, Laplace famously replied, “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”) More recently, religious believers have maintained that blind natural selection alone cannot explain the emergence of complex organisms, so God must be “guiding” the evolutionary process – a contention decisively (and gleefully) refuted by Dawkins and other Darwinians. Such “God of the gaps” arguments, when they concern the minutiae of biology or astrophysics, tend to blow up in the faces of the religious believers who deploy them." (Jim Holt, 'Why Does the World exists?')

Some apologists (e.g., Frank Turek) reply that naturalists do the same thing when they invoke science, ("science will explain this in the future"), and so naturalists commit the "science of the gaps". However, that misses the point of the argument. The problem is that science has a very successful history explaining stuff (as was pointed out in this book) while supernaturalism in general does not. Therefore, we should expect science to explain what we don't understand now. It is a question of which methodology is superior.

Of course, this isn't evidence against theism (I think), but it makes me think that religious apologetics is flawed and should be abandoned.

Depends. What religions did you have in mind when you make these assertions/speculations? Surely you didn't mean to group all of them together, as many of them are quite different and opposed to each other?

You'll also have to tell some of the scientists to give up their religion.

But in any case, welcome to the forum. Nice to have you here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you find that amusing you must find the list of ingredients on a candy bar rapper hilarious.

I appreciate that you want to debate the issue but you might wish to consider a more straight forward approach next time.

 

[exchemist]

Hi, peeps!

I'm reading an interesting book about the 'mystery of existence' and I found an amusing quote which is worth sharing here with you. Perhaps it could start some discussion on this topic.

"Science may be able to trace how the current universe evolved from an earlier state of physical reality, even following the process back as far as the Big Bang. But ultimately science hits a wall. It can’t account for the origin of the primal physical state... That, at least, is what diehard defenders [viz., apologists] of the God hypothesis insist. Historically, when science has seemed incapable of explaining some natural phenomenon, religious believers have been quick to invoke a Divine Artificer to fill the gap – only to be embarrassed when science finally succeeds in filling it after all. Newton, for example, thought that God was needed to make little adjustments from time to time in the orbits of the planets to keep them from colliding. But a century later, Laplace proved that physics was quite capable of accounting for the stability of the solar system. (When Napoléon asked Laplace where God was in his celestial scheme, Laplace famously replied, “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”) More recently, religious believers have maintained that blind natural selection alone cannot explain the emergence of complex organisms, so God must be “guiding” the evolutionary process – a contention decisively (and gleefully) refuted by Dawkins and other Darwinians. Such “God of the gaps” arguments, when they concern the minutiae of biology or astrophysics, tend to blow up in the faces of the religious believers who deploy them." (Jim Holt, 'Why Does the World exists?')

Some apologists (e.g., Frank Turek) reply that naturalists do the same thing when they invoke science, ("science will explain this in the future"), and so naturalists commit the "science of the gaps". However, that misses the point of the argument. The problem is that science has a very successful history explaining stuff (as was pointed out in this book) while supernaturalism in general does not. Therefore, we should expect science to explain what we don't understand now. It is a question of which methodology is superior.

Of course, this isn't evidence against theism (I think), but it makes me think that religious apologetics is flawed and should be abandoned.

I read somewhere - I forget where - that Cardinal Newman realised that this kind of argument for God was fatally flawed, back in the c.19th. He pointed out that the Christian who relies on gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence to bolster his faith is bound to have it weakened when science fills in the gaps.

The term "God of the Gaps" was actually invented by Prof. Charles Coulson (whose lectures I attended at university), who was a well-known Methodist lay preacher, in his spare time away from the Department of Theoretical Chemistry.

I doubt that serious Christian apologetics uses this argument.

 

[Rival]

I read somewhere - I forget where - that Cardinal Newman realised that this kind of argument for God was fatally flawed, back in the c.19th. He pointed out that the Christian who relies on gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence to bolster his faith is bound to have it weakened when science fills in the gaps.

The term "God of the Gaps" was actually invented by Prof. Charles Coulson (whose lectures I attended at university), who was a well-known Methodist lay preacher, in his spare time away from the Department of Theoretical Chemistry.

I doubt that serious Christian apologetics uses this argument.

And to follow from what you wrote, many scientists from history were Christians, Muslims and Jews. They were actively looking for naturalistic explanations, for natural laws, rather than 'God did it' - and it had no effect on their faith at all. So I think this is a largely modern and mayhap US phenomenon.

 

[Jose Fly]

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson spoke to the history of scientists invoking the God of the Gaps, and how that sort of thing has never really worked out....

 

[viole]

Hi, peeps!

I'm reading an interesting book about the 'mystery of existence' and I found an amusing quote which is worth sharing here with you. Perhaps it could start some discussion on this topic.

"Science may be able to trace how the current universe evolved from an earlier state of physical reality, even following the process back as far as the Big Bang. But ultimately science hits a wall. It can’t account for the origin of the primal physical state... That, at least, is what diehard defenders [viz., apologists] of the God hypothesis insist. Historically, when science has seemed incapable of explaining some natural phenomenon, religious believers have been quick to invoke a Divine Artificer to fill the gap – only to be embarrassed when science finally succeeds in filling it after all. Newton, for example, thought that God was needed to make little adjustments from time to time in the orbits of the planets to keep them from colliding. But a century later, Laplace proved that physics was quite capable of accounting for the stability of the solar system. (When Napoléon asked Laplace where God was in his celestial scheme, Laplace famously replied, “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”) More recently, religious believers have maintained that blind natural selection alone cannot explain the emergence of complex organisms, so God must be “guiding” the evolutionary process – a contention decisively (and gleefully) refuted by Dawkins and other Darwinians. Such “God of the gaps” arguments, when they concern the minutiae of biology or astrophysics, tend to blow up in the faces of the religious believers who deploy them." (Jim Holt, 'Why Does the World exists?')

Some apologists (e.g., Frank Turek) reply that naturalists do the same thing when they invoke science, ("science will explain this in the future"), and so naturalists commit the "science of the gaps". However, that misses the point of the argument. The problem is that science has a very successful history explaining stuff (as was pointed out in this book) while supernaturalism in general does not. Therefore, we should expect science to explain what we don't understand now. It is a question of which methodology is superior.

Of course, this isn't evidence against theism (I think), but it makes me think that religious apologetics is flawed and should be abandoned.

well, as you say, if we list the times a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a naturalistic one, and the times the inverse happened, then it is clear where we should rationally put our money.

however, what I will always find puzzling is why theists insist with such complicated arguments involving things like cosmology, ontologies of time, causality, etc. Theists, in general, are not only theists. They are Chrsitians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

so why not showing evidence of their God? Like He walking on water, allowing prophets to live three days in a tuna, or to fly to heaven on a winged horse?
That would have the huge bonus of not only providing evidence of God, but also of the God they believe in.

the only logical conclusion is that they consider the evidence of their subtype of God insufficient to convince anyone. Which undermines any logical justification they have to hold that particular belief.

ciao

- viole

 

[Magical Wand]

If you find that amusing you must find the list of ingredients on a candy bar rapper hilarious.

I appreciate that you want to debate the issue but you might wish to consider a more straight forward approach next time.

Well, I found Laplace's response amusing.

 

[Magical Wand]

I doubt that serious Christian apologetics uses this argument.

I like to read about apologetics, and the fact is that many prominent apologists use the origin of the universe as evidence of God. For example, William Craig argues that either the universe has a scientific explanation or a personal one (actually, this was first argued by Richard Swinburne). Since the universe came from nothing -- according to apologists, not scientists --, science hits a wall (as Holt said), and so a personal explanation is needed.

Of course, they will argue this is not a god the gaps, but once their scientific illiteracy is exposed, it becomes clear that this is exactly what they are doing.

 

[Magical Wand]

well, as you say, if we list the times a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a naturalistic one, and the times the inverse happened, then it is clear where we should rationally put our money.

however, what I will always find puzzling is why theists insist with such complicated arguments involving things like cosmology, ontologies of time, causality, etc. Theists, in general, are not only theists. They are Chrsitians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

so why not showing evidence of their God? Like He walking on water, allowing prophets to live three days in a tuna, or to fly to heaven on a winged horse?
That would have the huge bonus of not only providing evidence of God, but also of the God they believe in.

the only logical conclusion is that they consider the evidence of their subtype of God insufficient to convince anyone. Which undermines any logical justification they have to hold that particular belief.

ciao

- viole

That's exactly what I think!

 

[Magical Wand]

What religions did you have in mind when you make these assertions/speculations? Surely you didn't mean to group all of them together, as many of them are quite different and opposed to each other?

I used to think only Christian and Muslim apologists committed this fallacy, but I discovered many new age proponents/believers also make this kind of claim. Deepak Chopra, for example, makes claims about quantum mechanics and its alleged connections to some universal consciousness. The fact that we don't entirely understand QM (since there are many interpretations) doesn't give us permission to claim consciousness solves the measurement problem of QM. People should also stop using the law of attraction. QM doesn't support it.

You'll also have to tell some of the scientists to give up their religion.

Why? Just because their arguments for the existence of God are flawed, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It simply means they failed to support the proposition that a god exists.

But in any case, welcome to the forum. Nice to have you here.

Thank you for your hospitality! I'm glad I found a special place where I can discuss my favorite topic.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I used to think only Christian and Muslim apologists committed this fallacy, but I discovered many new age proponents/believers also make this kind of claim. Deepak Chopra, for example, makes claims about quantum mechanics and its alleged connections to some universal consciousness.

Yeah, that much gets complicated. I see New Age as more a dress-up to pre-existing beliefs. I've noticed some New Age communities have started using distinguishers like "New Age Hindu" and "New Age Christian" for everyone, although I find the majority to be Christian. The guy you mentioned seems to be Indian, so he could follow Hinduism or some-such, though if I've learned anything from these discussion groups, it's definitely not to assume it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, I found Laplace's response amusing.

And I have a mild preference fo Mark Twain. But, just in case I've overlooked something, do you have a point? I'm up there in ager and it's getting late.

 

[Magical Wand]

do you have a point?

I've made my point already; I find it amusing and so the title will remain that way.

 

[Heyo]

Such “God of the gaps” arguments, when they concern the minutiae of biology or astrophysics, tend to blow up in the faces of the religious believers who deploy them.

Apologists have found that, if you deny reality, nobody can make you. And there will even be a crowd willing to hear (and pay for) that denial over and over again.

 

[exchemist]

I like to read about apologetics, and the fact is that many prominent apologists use the origin of the universe as evidence of God. For example, William Craig argues that either the universe has a scientific explanation or a personal one (actually, this was first argued by Richard Swinburne). Since the universe came from nothing -- according to apologists, not scientists --, science hits a wall (as Holt said), and so a personal explanation is needed.

Of course, they will argue this is not a god the gaps, but once their scientific illiteracy is exposed, it becomes clear that this is exactly what they are doing.

Well neither Newman nor Coulson would have dreamt of using it.

It seems Christian apologists are going backwards, then. Perhaps they are seduced by the advent of Big Bang cosmology into God of the Gaps thinking.

 

[Deeje]

Hi, peeps!

Hello and welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here.
It would be beneficial if you actually had a subtitle for your username, as I have no idea how to pronounce..... Φᅠᅠ

The problem is that science has a very successful history explaining stuff (as was pointed out in this book) while supernaturalism in general does not. Therefore, we should expect science to explain what we don't understand now. It is a question of which methodology is superior.

If I may just give my thoughts on this point....
“Explaining stuff” is what apologetics is all about.....justification for any argument, scientific or religious, needs to have conclusive evidence resulting in the ability to make a decision, one way or the other about the topic at hand. I actually hate the word “apologetics” because it seems to carry the idea that you are apologizing for something.

In this world of science and technology, science is often seen as the superior “go to” for information on many subjects....and science can be a wondrous thing, when it’s based on facts.....hard provable facts. But so much of theoretical science is based on assumption and suggestion, rather that actual scientific facts. This blurry line, I believe, is cause for concern because what is often accepted as ‘proven science’ is not actually provable at all. The inevitable “gaps” therefore, are filled in by either side based on “belief and trust” in the system that promoted them.

I see no real advantage of one “belief system” over another when matters of faith are involved. We will all believe what we have been persuaded to believe, because we trust in the source.

The question is.....who is telling the truth? Are there things in the Bible that are as misinterpreted as scientific evidence often is? How can we tell?

For those not disposed towards God or the Bible, their choice is simple....there is no God. But for those of us who know in our hearts that there is a God whose intelligent design is manifest in all of creation, where can we go for the right explanation?

It seems like a two horse race......but could there be a third contender who accepts God as the all powerful Creator but who can dismiss YEC explanations AND evolutionary science as absolute nonsense?

 

[Heyo]

It seems like a two horse race......but could there be a third contender who accepts God as the all powerful Creator but who can dismiss YEC explanations AND evolutionary science as absolute nonsense?

There is a way to believe in a creator god AND be open to reality. It's called Deism. Deism fills a gap that is unlikely to be closed in the near or mid future.
YEC is not a "god of the gaps". There is no gap. One has to imagine one to believe in YEC.
OEC, i.e. the belief that creation of life, not its evolution, was facilitated by divine intervention is a god of the gaps argument that will hold until abiogenesis can deliver some definitive answers.

 

[Magical Wand]

Hello and welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Thanks!

“Explaining stuff” is what apologetics is all about

Remember the meaning of "explanation" in this context. It is not a simple story of what might have happened. A good "explanation" must have something called "explanatory power." This is a conjunction of several factors that determine the quality and truth of it. For example, it must make predictions that can be checked in the future. It must be falsifiable as well -- there must be a way to falsify this hypothesis, otherwise one can make ad hoc excuses ad infinitum to save it from being falsified.

But most importantly, in this context, it must have been checked/tested/confirmed in order to be considered the correct explanation. And that's what science does. It confirms the hypotheses and that's why it is the winning horse (at least, methodologically speaking).

Apologetics tries to find phenomena that can only be explained spiritualistically, but then science comes and presents the correct explanation (i.e., an explanation that is in accordance with the factors discussed above).

But so much of theoretical science is based on assumption and suggestion, rather that actual scientific facts.

Are you referring to evolution and the fact that the Earth is 4,5 billion years old? Because this is not based on assumption and suggestion.

The only example where scientists seem to be wasting time with speculation that I can think of is string theory. However, even in this case, they will admit it is just a hypothesis with no proof to back it up. They will say they hope it is right, but they don't know. I admire their honesty.

I see no real advantage of one “belief system” over another when matters of faith are involved. We will all believe what we have been persuaded to believe

This suggestion opens the doors to epistemic relativism and, consequently, radical skepticism. There must be some objective criteria in order to adjudicate between hypotheses, otherwise it is all relative and your belief -- as post-modernists like to say -- is just another "narrative". Come and share your narrative, but it is no more valid than any other.

I hope you don't accept the relativistic paradigm (since it opens the door to absurdities), so please correct me if my analysis is wrong.

 

[Deeje]

There is a way to believe in a creator god AND be open to reality. It's called Deism. Deism fills a gap that is unlikely to be closed in the near or mid future.
YEC is not a "god of the gaps". There is no gap. One has to imagine one to believe in YEC.
OEC, i.e. the belief that creation of life, not its evolution, was facilitated by divine intervention is a god of the gaps argument that will hold until abiogenesis can deliver some definitive answers.

My study of the Bible has resulted in an alternative view of creation that blends the Genesis account with known (as opposed to theoretical ) science. I have no need to dismiss real and provable science, or the Bible’s simplified account of creation, because they are quite compatible IMO. If God had included all the science behind creation, I’m sure that modern day scientists would feel like uneducated infants when contemplating the depth and volume of the information.

Science can claim that an Intelligent Creator does not exist, but how can they categorically eliminate him when they cannot prove that he does NOT exist. They believe he doesn’t, as strongly as we believe he does.....stalemate.

“Beliefs” (scientific or religious) are funny things.....they really don’t need much to convince a willing audience. “Preaching to the converted” is clearly seen on both sides. We will believe what we want to believe, and even if there are apparently valid arguments against either side, they will be dismissed.....justification is all they have left when actual “proof” cannot be ascertained. “Faith and belief” is what you are left with, on both sides.

In my view, this is exactly as it should be.....there is a reason for this situation that divides people so passionately. The defence for both sides is highly emotive because the truth (when it is finally revealed) will crush one side or the other. When life is on the line, who wants to be on the losing side? I think there is more at stake in this issue than most people realize.

Have you never wondered why there is so much passion displayed in the exchanges.....and why accusations and insults are levelled at those who disagree. If there was actual “proof” for either side in this debate, there would be no grounds for debate in the first place.....and so it goes on...and on....and on.....

One day, I believe....it will end.....you may not....