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

[Deeje]

Hello again...

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.

I guess it depends on which pot you are marinating in.....being immersed in one pot or the other does not give people a real opportunity to make an informed decision, because of being immersed in only one mind set. Objectivity is almost non-existent in this issue. “Explanations” then, can seem quite convincing, given the fact that there are no real facts in theoretical science or in proof for Intelligent Design.

If scientists have to use terms like “might have” or “could have” or “leads us to the conclusion that...” you can read right over those if you are convinced of the basis for their reasoning....but they are hardly terms that describe proven facts, are they? You can believe them if you want to.

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 falsification.

This whole falsification thing is tedious IMO. It basically means that if someone can’t prove that an idea is false, then it must be true....but “ideas”, no matter how plausible they seem to be, are not facts. “Explanations” based on what someone “thinks might have or could have” happened, is not the same as what can be proven....and that truth is seldom told. Nothing can be proven on either side of this issue....which means that “belief” is at work.

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).

OK...”checked/tested/confirmed” by whom? Is the fox in charge of the chicken house? Don’t you need to trust those who are carrying out the checks to be objective? How can they be?

Science has become a “religion” in its own right for many people, IMO. People behave with the same passion and fervor, as if they were defending their own “gods”. Again we have those who are preaching to the converted, reinforcing the need to discard all notions of an Intelligent Creator, as though their lives depended on ditching Him. Did you never wonder why they care so much?

“Misery loves company”.....and apparently atheism does too. Just because the majority might be persuaded by “the science” to accept that there is no Creator, when has that ever been a determining factor for the truth?....especially with regard to the existence of God. “The science” in this case is speculative, not solidly established. Evolution has never ceased to be a hypothesis.....defined as “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”

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).

Science can never “correct” the Creator. I believe that a closer examination of the Genesis account, especially by going deeper into the original language, will, reveal some interesting points, such as the length of the creative days.....nowhere are these “days” limited to 24 hours......but in Hebrew, the word “yohm” can also refer to periods of undetermined length. That means that the opening verse in Genesis 1:1 could be totally unrelated in time to what happened in the succeeding verses. That allows the earth to be billions of years old as geologists tell us. It also allows for the creative ”days” to be millions of years long. We are speaking about the power of a unknown Being that exists outside of earth time. If you give creation all the time it needs, then the real science can be blended with the scriptures quite seemlessly IMV.

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.

No, see above. The earth itself can be very ancient, and so can a lot of other things when you consider that we are not restricted to 24 hour periods. It allows for God to be a Creator rather than a magician. That means that all creation is deliberate and that there was time to tweak and to experiment with all the kinds that were brought into existence. It also allows for all the extinctions that took place before man appeared on the scene. That makes the whole concept of “amoebas to dinosaurs” redundant rubbish to me......

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.

Macro-evolution is in the same category IMO. It is still a hypothesis with no “proof” to back it up....but rather than say “they don’t know”....they do the opposite, so forgive me for not admiring their honesty.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Lol, there's huge gaps in science. Who are you trying to fool?
I don't think God should be used to fill the gaps, but understood as the reason for everything. Science only works because God designed an order to things.

 

[Magical Wand]

OK...”checked/tested/confirmed” by whom? Is the fox in charge of the chicken house? Don’t you need to trust those who are carrying out the checks to be objective?

It seems to me you're challenging my epistemology (how I know things) instead of the content of this post. The topic is whether the scientific methodology is superior to apologetical methodology, not whether I have to trust scientists when tell me scientific facts. I mean, this is not new to me. I'm aware of these epistemological questions and I'm also aware there are many books out there by professional philosophers dealing with them.

Also, I feel like there are two ways to reply to the challenge made by Holt. (1) Argue against his conclusion that science is the winning horse or (2) try to undermine the robust foundations of science entirely so that its credibility level will become lower than that of apologetics or at the same level of apologetics.

You chose number (2). That quote, however, is directed at those who accept the objectivity and force of science. Of course, if you deny the power of science then this quote shouldn't worry you. After all, science hasn't explained anything -- not in the way it is understood by the author. But that's absurd to say the least.

Anyway, I haven't studied epistemology in depth, so I won't comment on it. Although recently I've been studying the crippled epistemology of presuppositional apologetics, which deserves a whole book of its own.

 

[Deeje]

The topic is whether the scientific methodology is superior to apologetical methodology, not whether I have to trust scientists when tell me scientific facts.

But unless you trust that their scientific methodology is superior, how will you objectively evaluate their findings? Its a measuring rod.....but how do we measure the rod itself, to determine its accuracy?

this is not new to me. I'm aware of these epistemological questions and I'm also aware there are many books out there by professional philosophers dealing with them.

IMV, philosophy has no place in Christianity.....it is a Greek intrusion that only muddies the waters. Overthinking what are simple Biblical statements can lead us down all manner of rabbit holes, none of which alter the basically simple truth of the scriptures. The K.I.S.S. principle is the best one IMO.

What makes the Bible's statements so hard to accept? Its not like science can prove that there is no Creator.....they can only suggest it, and then present their evidence to support their assertions. I am not buying their assertions because for me, they have only swapped one unprovable "belief system" for another.

If you go back....I mean, way back, to the first life and consider what real and substantiated evidence there is that a simple, single-celled organism that supposedly arose by chance.....came fully equipped to eventually transform itself into all the life forms that have ever existed on this planet.....wouldn't it be good to see something more than supposition and assumptions to form the basis of a new belief system, when the one they are replacing has as much real "evidence" as they do?

 

[Magical Wand]

Science only works because God designed an order to things.

So, are you saying God is needed to explain the uniformity of nature? Isn't that a gap being closed by God? You just said you don't think "God should be used to fill the gaps", but, then, in the following sentence you contradicted yourself by saying a gap (uniformity) must be explained by God.

Perhaps it is just a brute fact that the universe is uniform. Or perhaps uniformity is explained by metaphysical necessity. How do you rule out these competing/alternative equally hypothetical (to the God hypothesis) explanations?

 

[blü 2]

it makes me think that religious apologetics is flawed and should be abandoned.

Yes, apologetics exhibits the same vices as defense attorneys everywhere ─ the job is to get the client off the hook, and truth is only to be used if it's helpful; otherwise it's to be ignored, finessed, misrepresented or shouted down.


(By the way, how are we to pronounce your netname? Thetadoor?)

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, are you saying God is needed to explain the uniformity of nature? Isn't that a gap being closed by God? You just said you don't think "God should be used to fill the gaps", but, then, in the following sentence you contradicted yourself by saying a gap (uniformity) must be explained by God.

There's no gaps. God isn't tinkering with the process. He's not filling in the missing pieces because he's making it all happen.
I'm saying uniformity is one thing that shows us this reality.

 

[Magical Wand]

By the way, how are we to pronounce your netname?

Just Phi. It is like Wifi, but without the WI.

 

[Magical Wand]

There's no gaps. God isn't tinkering with the process. He's not filling in the missing pieces because he's making it all happen.
I'm saying uniformity is one thing that shows us this reality.

Isn't uniformity a missing piece that must be explained, just like existence? If so, isn't that a gap in our knowledge that isn't currently explained by the naturalistic worldview? If that's correct, then aren't you filling that gap with God? Also, how is "tinkering with the process" a relevant criterion to consider an explanation (not) to be filling a gap?

And again, how did you rule out brute fact and metaphysical necessity as potential explanations of uniformity?

 

[firedragon]

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.

Why should "religious apologetics" be abandoned just because you think its flawed? Dont you think that the cut and paste, and your whole post was atheistic apologetics? I find flaws in it and should I say it should be abandoned? Atheistic apologetics should be abandoned??

The flaw I see in this argument is (I have not read this book so I only know what you provided here) it is representing some religious apologetics, not all. Also, it is providing an apologetic view. An evangelical attempt of an atheist, not a scientific theory that explains the so called "gaps" the author is speaking of. The other flaw is the atheistic denial of accepting that their evangelism has created a false dichotomy of "God or science". That is in your commentary too. You present it as if it is a theistic foundation which is a strawman.

Because of these fundamental flaws and fallacies, atheistic apologetics should be abandoned??

No. I dont think its valid to say any of this should be abandoned without a research into the outcome of a possible abandonment of either apologetics. Until then, it is just a "purely religious faith statement" to say "it should be abandoned".

 

[Heyo]

Lol, there's huge gaps in science. Who are you trying to fool?

I never denied that. You are fooling nobody but yourself by attacking a strawman.

I don't think God should be used to fill the gaps, but understood as the reason for everything. Science only works because God designed an order to things.

We might agree on that - not that a god is responsible, but that there is order in the universe. That is a characteristic of Deism as well as an axiom in science.
Theists deny this order or at least think that god did a poor job when creating order. And that is the fundamental disagreement between scientists and theists. Not if a god exists or if it created the universe, (science has no position on that) but if there is magic in this world or not.

 

[Marcion]

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 disagree, it is unscientific to rule out that at the edges of the knowable or rather measurable reality, there is a connection to the spiritual dimension that underlies all of existence. This however is not religious apologetics but keeping an open mind to gain new insights about this connection.

The Big Bang is a good example although upto now it has been hard to imagine how we will be able to investigate that edge.
The same for the origins of life and what life really signifies and how good health is established and maintained (besides repairing physical structures and keeping biological chemistry running smoothly).

Preconceived beliefs should not play a role in such research but keeping an open mind for a paradigmatic shift is also important.
After all, who in the time of Newton could have ever imagined the Relativity Theory of Einstein and the "bending of space" around heavy masses like stars?
Atheistic dogma's are as bad as theistic nonsense plucked from religious scriptures.

 

[Magical Wand]

Why should "religious apologetics" be abandoned just because you think its flawed?

It shouldn't be abandoned because I think it is flawed. Rather, it should be abandoned because it is flawed. I think it is flawed because it is flawed. The argument is right there in the quote; it is not just an assertion.

Dont you think that... your whole post was atheistic apologetics?

Of course not. Atheism says God does not exist (and, yes, atheists, this is the traditional definition). Holt didn't say any such funny stuff. Rather, Holt argued religious apologetical methodology/epistemology is flawed, that is, trying to find holes in our understanding to put God has proven to be unfruitful. This is not atheism. It is an attack on re-apologetics.

I find flaws in it and should I say it should be abandoned?

Yes! If there is a real and fatal flaw in the argument, then we should abandon it. So, let's see if your flaw is real.

it is representing some religious apologetics, not all.

I agree; after all, not all religious apologetics tries to prove God's existence. For example, some presuppositional apologists (e.g., John Frame) argue we should simply presuppose God's existence instead of basing this belief on objective evidential grounds (and still claim we're being rational). This is, of course, ridiculous and philosophically absurd. Anyway, Holt was only addressing apologetics that tries to prove God's existence by proposing it as an explanation of some philosophical or scientific problem (say, qualia -- i.e., the hard problem of consciousness --, why the world exists and so on). But this isn't a flaw in his argument since this is the kind of apologetics that must be abandoned in my view anyway.

In any case, if I reject presuppositional apologetics and evidential/classical apologetics, then I don't know what's left.

[Holt] is providing an apologetic view... [instead of] a scientific theory that explains the so called "gaps" the author is speaking of.

Holt is providing a philosophical argument (more precisely, an inductive argument) grounded on the fact that science has closed many gaps. Holt even mentioned one or two to make his point. If you disagree science did this, feel free to explain yourself.

The other flaw is the atheistic denial of accepting that their evangelism has created a false dichotomy of "God or science". That is in your commentary too. You present it as if it is a theistic foundation which is a strawman.

Perhaps you misunderstood his argument. The point is that science presented successful mechanical naturalistic explanations which superseded supernaturalistic ones. Therefore, there is no false dichotomy. The dichotomy is very true: supernaturalistic vs naturalistic.

And, no, I didn't present it as a theistic foundation. I think the foundation of theistic belief is faith; not gaps in scientific and/or philosophical knowledge. This is entirely separate from the topic of apologetics.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps you misunderstood his argument. The point is that science presented successful mechanical naturalistic explanations which superseded supernaturalistic ones. Therefore, there is no false dichotomy. The dichotomy is very true: supernaturalistic vs naturalistic.

You have misunderstood it completely. Atheists are making a strawman and attacking it as part of their evangelism and you have become part of it.

Its a false dichotomy. Religion also promotes science. Maybe where ever you come from, from your personal experience you are generalising this religious vs science to religion as a whole. Thats an anecdotal fallacy.

Science will always present naturalistic explanations to everything. Sometimes presenting or identifying an answer creates more questions, and that's how science works. But when you say "superseding supernatural ones" that is a strawman you are creating so that it is a convenient aunt sally to attack. Strawman. Absolutely bogus. Lets say a religious person is looking to invent some mechanism to calculate things, or he comes up with an algorithm, he did it using his thinking prowess. So how does that make a religion vs science dichotomy? Why did he not look for some magic or grace? Because religion as a whole does not teach you to forget all endeavours of reason and thinking and opt only to asking God for divine intervention.

This type of atheistic evangelism either comes from ignorance or providence. Or was that a false dichotomy?

The dichotomy is absolutely false. A convenient one, but still false.

 

[exchemist]

Just Phi. It is like Wifi, but without the WI.

Like "Just Klaatu", in "The Day TheEarth Stood Still"?

 

[exchemist]

Lol, there's huge gaps in science. Who are you trying to fool?
I don't think God should be used to fill the gaps, but understood as the reason for everything. Science only works because God designed an order to things.

I think you re shooting at an imaginary target.

@Heyo was not suggesting there are no gaps in science, or trying to fool anybody. After all, if there were no gaps, nobody would be doing any research any more, would they?

 

[PruePhillip]

Hi, peeps!

... religious apologetics is flawed and should be abandoned.

Science is super-good at explaining the natural universe.
Perhaps the beginning wasn't at the Big Bang - maybe there's some truth in this 'M-theory' about colliding membranes
causing the Big Bang - could there be something that created these hyper-dimensional membranes?
But... physics (and maths) BEGAN with the natural universe. P.h.y.s.i.c.s...d.i.d...n.o.t...c.r.e.a.t.e...t.h.e...u.n.i.v.e.r.s.e.....
The 'universe' is the sum of all natural things - space, times, energy, physical laws, mathematics etc..
We know it's not 'turtles all the way down' but all science can do is go a few turtles deep. And somewhere, below all the
turtles, lies things outside of science forever.
And it's here we hit the two major questions
1 - how can something come from absolute nothing?
2 - why did this happen?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Isn't uniformity a missing piece that must be explained, just like existence? If so, isn't that a gap in our knowledge that isn't currently explained by the naturalistic worldview? If that's correct, then aren't you filling that gap with God? Also, how is "tinkering with the process" a relevant criterion to consider an explanation (not) to be filling a gap?

And again, how did you rule out brute fact and metaphysical necessity as potential explanations of uniformity?

Of course, uniformity isn't a missing piece, it's the whole reality.
This argument you are trying to make never made any sense to me.
If I see beauty and purpose and complexity in anything, I know it's created by someone and nature is no exception.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Theists deny this order or at least think that god did a poor job when creating order.

What hat did you pull that nonsense from?

 

[Heyo]

What hat did you pull that nonsense from?

It's in the definition of the word. While the Deist believes that a god created the universe with perfect order, i.e. the laws of nature set at the creation being enough, the theist believes that god had to (and did and will do) suspend those laws for later interventions (a.k.a. magic). Scientists agree with Deists in that magic doesn't happen, though for different reasons.