Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[Gambit]

Science isn’t conscious so can’t confine itself to anything.

I'm not actually ascribing consciousness or subjectivity to science itself. I'm merely speaking figuratively. That should be understood.

I’m not sure what you mean by the mind being subjective.

Something that is subjective is only amenable to the first-person perspective. Something that is objective is amenable to the the third-person perspective. Science is based solely on something being amenable to the third-person perspective. I cannot objectively observe your subjective awareness even as you cannot observe mine. Since God is pure subjectivity, it is not possible even in theory for the divine mind to be objectively observed. As such, it is beyond the purview of science. That's why it is inane to argue that belief in God's existence cannot be rationally justified unless it has been scientifically validated by empirical observation based on the third-person perspective. Your own consciousness itself has never been scientifically validated empirical observation based on the third-person perspective!

 

[leibowde84]

This thread is to educate those of you who apparently do not understand the difference between science and metaphysics. It is also to educate those of you who apparently do not understand what a "God of the gaps" actually is.

Definitions:







Why is all this relevant? Because there are more than a few here (primarily atheists and agnostics, albeit, there are some theists) who have argued that the belief in the existence of God cannot be rationally justified because "God" cannot be scientifically validated by empirical observation. This is a ridiculous argument because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science (which is based on methodological naturalism) is in the business of explaining physical phenomena by identifying natural causes. God (as traditionally understood) is a supernatural cause and therefore beyond the purview of science. Also, metaphysics is in the business of explaining the fundamental nature of being. So, a metaphysical argument which posits God (who has traditionally been understood as subsistent being itself) as the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is not a "God of the gaps" argument. Why? Because the mystery being is within the domain of metaphysics, not of science.

Ffor any of this to even matter, you must define God. God's existence cannot be rationally justified unless God is sufficiently defined. Generalities like "creator", "love", "light", etc. do not suffice.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not actually ascribing consciousness or subjectivity to science itself. I'm merely speaking figuratively. That should be understood.



Something that is subjective is only amenable to the first-person perspective. Something that is objective is amenable to the the third-person perspective. Science is based solely on something being amenable to the third-person perspective. I cannot objectively observe your subjective awareness even as you cannot observe mine. Since God is pure subjectivity, it is not possible even in theory for the divine mind to be objectively observed. As such, it is beyond the purview of science. That's why it is inane to argue that belief in God's existence cannot be rationally justified unless it has been scientifically validated by empirical observation based on the third-person perspective. Your own consciousness itself has never been scientifically validated empirical observation based on the third-person perspective!

But, subjective experience is unreliable as evidence for anything. So, how can one "rationally justify" the existence of something that only appears in subjective experience? Seems counter-intuitive.

 

[leibowde84]

This thread is to educate those of you who apparently do not understand the difference between science and metaphysics. It is also to educate those of you who apparently do not understand what a "God of the gaps" actually is.

Definitions:







Why is all this relevant? Because there are more than a few here (primarily atheists and agnostics, albeit, there are some theists) who have argued that the belief in the existence of God cannot be rationally justified because "God" cannot be scientifically validated by empirical observation. This is a ridiculous argument because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science (which is based on methodological naturalism) is in the business of explaining physical phenomena by identifying natural causes. God (as traditionally understood) is a supernatural cause and therefore beyond the purview of science. Also, metaphysics is in the business of explaining the fundamental nature of being. So, a metaphysical argument which posits God (who has traditionally been understood as subsistent being itself) as the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is not a "God of the gaps" argument. Why? Because the mystery being is within the domain of metaphysics, not of science.

The issue is that "something from nothing" is a scientific claim. We don't know whether, before the Big Bang, there was nothing per se. And, we certainly don't know whether or not science will be able to discover the initial cause. Anytime anyone claims to justify God's existence by offering God as an explanation for something that science cannot yet explain, that is a God of the Gaps argument, even according to the definition you provided.

 

[HonestJoe]

I cannot objectively observe your subjective awareness even as you cannot observe mine.

Not directly but there are ways of observing them indirectly via their effects. If you want to determine whether something makes people happy or sad, you can’t directly determine it but you can use all sorts of measures to do so (asking them, involuntary physical reactions like laughing or crying or electrical patterns in the brain). None of these methods are flawless but then neither are a lot of the direct observations either. That’s why hypotheses are tested multiple times in different ways before definitive conclusions are reached (and even then, they’re open to future challenge).

Since God is pure subjectivity, it is not possible even in theory for the divine mind to be objectively observed.

On what basis are you declaring God to be subjective though? You’re basically proposing something that is defined as being impossible for us to observe but then going on to make definitive statements about its nature. If anything exists outside of our scope to study it, we can say literally nothing about it that isn’t guess work or wishful thinking.

Of course, if you’re talking about a god who has inspired the writing of scripture, appears to or communicated directly with people or has even come to Earth in human form, that’s something within the scope of scientific method (if not within our current ability to fully assess).

That's why it is inane to argue that belief in God's existence cannot be rationally justified unless it has been scientifically validated by empirical observation based on the third-person perspective.

It isn’t rational to believe in a specifically defined god, with a whole set of detailed acts, opinions, laws and consequences, without evidence for that specific god (as opposed to any alternative possible gods, let alone no gods at all). You’re perfectly entitled to believe in the existence of a god which can’t be proven but you can’t then go on to claim it has been proven to exist.

Your own consciousness itself has never been scientifically validated empirical observation based on the third-person perspective!

Sure, but my consciousness only matters to me. I’m not expecting anyone to worship it or do what it tells us to on pain of eternal damnation.

 

[Gambit]

No, it doesn't, because it's quite possible there has always been "something".

God's existence is eternal and could have not been otherwise. That's why the theological explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is the only rational explanation to the mystery of existence. (The atheist has no explanation. In fact, the only tack available to the atheist is to undermine the legitimacy of the question.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

The opposite problem also exists. If God's eternal existence can not taken without proof, why not the eternal existence of universe be accepted in the same way? Gambit, how many atheists and agnostics you have been able to make into theists? The house of unbelievers is just s strong as the house of believers.

.. we can say literally nothing about it that isn’t guess work or wishful thinking.

Why, just look up in the books and you will find all that you need to know. Word of God, that is the proof.

 

[leibowde84]

God's existence is eternal and could have not been otherwise. That's why the theological explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is the only rational explanation to the mystery of existence. (The atheist has no explanation. In fact, the only tack available to the atheist is to undermine the legitimacy of the question.)

Nevertheless, the question is illegitimate, as it is erroneously assuming that there was "nothing" at some time in the past.

 

[viole]

It is not possible (even in theory) to explain the cause of nature by resorting to only a natural cause because any such cause would have to qualify as a part of nature itself and would therefore be in need of explanation. This is why the mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science. I propose a metaphysical explanation because that's the only rationally justified explanation.

What makes you think that nature (whatever you mean with it) has, or need, a cause?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Science confines itself to what can be objectively observed. Since the divine mind (like any mind) is inherently subjective, it is not possible (even in theory) to objectively observe it. The fact is that science cannot objectively observe human consciousness, let alone divine consciousness.

The divine mind seems suspiciously like the figment of the imagination of far less divine ones.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Scuba Pete]

Interesting discussion so far.

While it's in vogue to point out the God of the Gaps, we also need to discuss the Science of the Gaps. Science may or may not be able to close those gaps. There's a lot of faith by some that science will be able to do just that.

One of the main thrusts of the OP was the idea that you can't measure the super-natural with the natural. It's the wrong tool for the job! You might as well try to measure radio frequencies with a potato. Science says nothing about God and God remains pretty silent about religion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The divine mind seems suspiciously like the figment of the imagination of far less divine ones.

I never will understand how small a mind needs to get in order to disparage others for their beliefs. Hey, that works both ways too. I don't go telling atheists how immoral/stupid/unenlightened/whatever they are for not believing. I find both attitudes to be boorish.

 

[Gambit]

Ffor any of this to even matter, you must define God. God's existence cannot be rationally justified unless God is sufficiently defined. Generalities like "creator", "love", "light", etc. do not suffice.

Thomistic metaphysics (a.k.a. classical theism) clearly delineates the doctrine of God.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The divine mind seems suspiciously like the figment of the imagination of far less divine ones.

Ciao

- viole

How can it possibly be logical for the 'lesser' to contain within it the 'greater'?

Only be refuting the existence of logic itself.
But you have already assumed logic exists in order to even begin formulating sentences, arguments, debates.
By trying to 'win' the argument, you assume that your argument is more logical.
But clearly it is not because
the greater must contain within it the lesser.

Thus, the 'less divine imagination' must be a subset of the Divine imagination.
Thus we are the creation of the Creator.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Interesting discussion so far.

While it's in vogue to point out the God of the Gaps, we also need to discuss the Science of the Gaps. Science may or may not be able to close those gaps. There's a lot of faith by some that science will be able to do just that.

One of the main thrusts of the OP was the idea that you can't measure the super-natural with the natural. It's the wrong tool for the job! You might as well try to measure radio frequencies with a potato. Science says nothing about God and God remains pretty silent about religion.

I agree that the science of the gaps is the greater fallacy.
Especially when it cannot yield straight-line predictions
like most of the 'science' for the last century.

However, if one looks back to before the periodic table,
alchemy had all the hallmarks of what people call 'metaphysics',
but it was only by pursuing what seemed like an impossibly difficult puzzle
that the mystical aspect of alchemy was reduced to the routines of chemistry.
(albeit that the use of the term metaphysics has been bastardized - and has several meanings)

Trying to understand consciousness is similar.
We need to appreciate just what consciousness is in order to comprehend what
caused this universe to come into being.

The mistake most thinkers are making is to jump too quickly to the notion of 'God'.
Instead let us not even talk of 'Creator', but instead 'creator'.

Our universe has all the residue of a creation, as much as a Creation.
Theists and aTheists have to meet each other midway.
For both, the minimal argument must be a starting point of compromise.

The Theist must agree that some aspects of this universe appear imperfect,
thus the 'Creator' might in fact merely be a 'creator'. Misery seems to appear too
severe in many cases for so many people.

On the other hand, the aTheist cannot deny the marvel of sophistication
which makes up the wonder of the periodic table, the structure of solar systems,
and obviously the beauty of ecosystems and so many other aspects of nature.
Such cannot be the result of 'randomness'.

So the cause of the universe is a creative mind, at least,
and perhaps a Creative Mind.

 

[leibowde84]

While it's in vogue to point out the God of the Gaps, we also need to discuss the Science of the Gaps. Science may or may not be able to close those gaps. There's a lot of faith by some that science will be able to do just that.

The point is that we don't know either way. One shouldn't assume to know the future limits of scientific discovery/understanding.

One of the main thrusts of the OP was the idea that you can't measure the super-natural with the natural. It's the wrong tool for the job!

isn't that assuming the limits of scientific discovery?

 

[McBell]

One of the main thrusts of the OP was the idea that you can't measure the super-natural with the natural. It's the wrong tool for the job!

Wonder if we will ever have an accurate (or should it be honest) way of measuring the super-natural?

 

[Scuba Pete]

The point is that we don't know either way. One shouldn't assume to know the future limits of scientific discovery/understanding.

Or it's successes.

isn't that assuming the limits of scientific discovery?

Every man's got to know his limitations!

 

[leibowde84]

Thomastic metaphysics (a.k.a. classical theism) clearly delineates the doctrine of God.

I couldn't disagree with that more. Aquinas wasn't clear at all, and he used definitions that merely utilize circular logic, such as "the eternal", the "uncaused cause", the "necessary being". They don't define God other than to prove his own argument ... a.k.a. "circular logic".

 

[leibowde84]

Or it's successes.

Right, I just said that. No one should assume to know the future limits or successes of scientific discovery. Do you agree?

Every man's got to know his limitations!

Not relevant, as we aren't discussing our personal limitations. We are speaking to the limits of future scientific discovery. The point is that we cannot know them.