Pages

Friday, February 1, 2013

Gaps All The Way Down

“God of the gaps” is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. (from Wikipedia) History has shown us that many gaps can and have been filled as scientific knowledge grows. So much so, in fact, that it is perfectly reseasonable to assume that there is a natural explaination for our remaining gaps. Theists tend not to come to this conclusion, for obvious reasons, but I wonder how long this conclusion may be avoided.

The best example of a closed gap is Darwin’s shutdown of the argument from design. Of course, I realize there are still individuals and backward denominations that dismiss evolution as a valid explainer of the world’s biological complexity, but if the slow-to-come-around Catholic Church is on board, it’s safe to say that the others are simply in denial. From most of my interactions with honest theists, their main beef with “evolution” is that it is incomplete--meaning that it doesn’t take into account life’s ultimate origin. We should recognize this for what it is: a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution’s scope, a moving of the goal post from the argument of design to entirely different argument, and a detour from one closed gap to another open gap.

Darwin closing one of the biggest gaps unintensionally converted many theists across the world. Atheist favorite, Richard Dawkins, wrote that he would still be swayed by life’s apparent design if not for the Theory of Evolution. However, explaining the complexity of life doesn’t explain the existence of life. Our biological origin is still an open gap. Science calls it abiogenesis. We have some ideas how it could have happened, but no reproducable experiments to prove which hypothesis is correct. Like the other gap of note, the ultimate origin of the universe, we are unsure. Whether you’re in the quantum foam camp, the violation of causality camp, or any of the other camps that could all be possible from what we see at the quantum level, there’s no smoking gun...yet. My question to theists is this: would settling your lingering questions allow you to let go of God? Humanity is crazy smart. I used to think some answers would be forever beyond our grasp, but now that I have a clearer sense of where science is going, I wouldn’t take anything off the table. My advice? Don’t take atheism off the table. It’s already the most reasonable worldview, and it’s getting more reasonable everyday.

I realize this is my second post directed towards theists in a couple weeks and I'm fully aware that mostly atheists read this blog. I am trying to engage some believers so that I'm not always preaching to the choir (ironically.)

Whether you are theist or atheist, I'd be interested in your opinion of the truth of this statement:
Theists accept that there are some things are beyond our understanding while atheists accept that there are some things we don't yet understand.
Thanks for reading.

19 comments:

  1. That an interesting statement at the end there. Based on our view of the world, I think it is right. Atheists accept that there are things we don't understand yet, and endeavor to understand them while theists aren't motivated to try to figure it out.

    The way I would have looked at it when I was growing up is that I already know how everything works, how did the universe begin? A loving God blinked it into existence. Those atheists just don't see the truth. I suppose if you had then asked me how God did it I would say we can't know...

    My other thought is that there are probably some things that many atheists think we will never know. For example, whether or not we are part of a multiverse is probably something that we will never be able to find out.

    That's my somewhat rambly answer :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I rambly agree. I don't think we'll be able to prove a multiverse, but we may keep finding it more and more probable.

      Delete
  2. Whether you are theist or atheist, I'd be interested in your opinion of the truth of this statement:
    Theists accept that there are some things are beyond our understanding while atheists accept that there are some things we don't yet understand.


    I think that's true. Theists tend to call such things 'divine mysteries' and bemoan atheists who view such mysteries as problems to be solved or dismissed as meaningless. The world mystery itself derives from mysticism but today eg a 'mystery novel' is a problem to be solved by the end of the novel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never made the mystery/mysticism connection before.

      Delete
    2. Would you elaborate on the mystery/mysticism connection, please. I haven't seen it any of the mystics I've read. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I'm ignorant of where you're getting the connection from.

      Delete
  3. I suppose I would generally accept that statement, although in reality, it's not complete. Theists do think that some things are inherently beyond human understanding... except theirs. They understand them, or more properly, they simply declare "God did it!" and think that explains any gaps in our understanding we could ever have. They don't have to understand it, they have a catch-all excuse.

    Unfortunately for them, as I keep pointing out, just because we don't have an answer for a particular question right this second doesn't give them license to just make shit up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theists believe that they have answers, but they can't understand those answers.

      Delete
  4. As a new atheist, I don't mind at all that you direct posts to theists. I have a lot of catching up to do. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmmm. I wonder, Grundy, if proving abiogenesis is possible (in the lab) would do anything. You've had more debates, so you probably have a better understanding, but it seems to me that the theists usually try to debunk evolution do so because they recognize its secularizing effect, like what you mention with Dawkins. In other words, they are not banking on evolution being false to hold their beliefs, but rather are attacking evolution as a manner of preventing people from falling away, among other less eternally-trivial reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would do something, just not everything. A few theists would probably convert, a bunch would use other arguments for God, and some would deny the proof.

      Delete
  6. Good thoughts. Addy Pross' book, What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology, on Amazon.com here looks at that particular gap. I haven't read back through all your earlier posts, so maybe that book title isn't new here. Not sure where I got it from myself. Maybe Oerter's blog.

    As to your specific question (nice formulation, btw), how about looking at it this way: (1) is there a reality beyond what the present human brain can come to know through scientific examination (2) if so, do we presently have any way to know anything (... or anything useful ....) about such reality?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haven't read that book, but I've heard of it.

      1) Is clearly unknown. 2) If so, no. Interesting questions for philosophers, I suppose, but without an application.

      Delete
  7. Well ... I just finished reading the well-articulated (on-going?) debate between you and thirdmillennialtemplar on your earlier post here. My examination of your question in this post was not intended to extend or interlace into that prior debate. BTW, I applaud both of you for waging a very readable and non-acrimonious dialogue. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, we have a couple long threads on his blog too. If you like to watch people argue, check it out (or visit my family.)

      Delete
  8. Nice post! I think many theists believe science is but one source of knowledge -- and not even the paradigm for knowledge. To those theists, there are other sources of knowledge, often including faith. It may be odd to look upon faith as a kind of knowing, but that's what I've seen some theists do. So, for those theists, you could presumably close all the gaps and they would still tell you they had knowledge of their god.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Most of the debates I am seeing (about religion vs science anyway) seem to focus on empirical "knowing" vs rational and perhaps Kantian categorical "knowing". Somewhere above Grundy or a commenter brought up mysticism - and there is also, yes, Western faith-based experience. So I wonder if the religion vs science debate might be choking off discussion of other ways of "knowing"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I linked to this post from Robert Oerter's blog, Somewhat Abnormal, (re his discussion with Tyler of thirdmillennialtemplar), along with a short additional remark about poker and thermodynamics and God, and a few additional links to Feser and Coyne, if interested. Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad I could bring those two together. :-) I'll talk about poker anytime.

      Delete