Revisiting the “God of the Gaps” Ron Larson. OUTLINE The “God of the gaps” pitfall in...

Revisiting the “God of the Gaps”

Ron Larson

OUTLINE

•The “God of the gaps” pitfall in apologetics

•The growing aggressiveness of atheistic scientists

•My apologetic (shortened version)

•Re-assessment of the “God of the gaps” critique

“Gaps” filled by Science•Isaac Newton asserted that God’s intervention was required to maintain the stability of planetary orbits, but Laplace explained their stability using Newton’s own theory of gravitation. When asked where God fit into his theory, Laplace is said to have remarked: “I have no need of that hypothesis.”

•William Paley argued that the clock-like perfection and intricacy of living creatures implies that their origin could only be found in a divine “Watchmaker.” Darwin explained how natural selection might gradually lead to diverse forms of life from a single progenitor, without the need of “that hypothesis.”

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Fossil Fish With "Limbs" Is Missing Link, Study Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html

Found in the Canadian Arctic, the new fossil boasts leglike fins, scientists say. The creature is being hailed as a crucial missing link between fish and land animals

Tiktaalik roseaeQuickTime™ and a

TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.



Walking Whale Rodhocetus, a primitive whale that lived 47 million years ago, visualized on the basis of new fossils from Pakistan. The ankle bones indicate a close relationship between early whales and hoofed land mammals such as hippos and pigs.Copyright 2001 Science/Painting by John Klausmeyer



Ancient Walking Whales Shed Light on Ancestry of Ocean GiantsDavid BraunNational Geographic News September 19, 2001



Ambulocetus

"If by the accumulation of irresistible evidence we are driven -- may notone say permitted-- to accept Evolution as God's method in creation, it isa mistaken policy to glory in what it cannot account for. The reason whymen grudge to Evolution each of its fresh claims to show how things havebeen made is groundless fear that if we discover how they are made weminimize their divinity. When things are known, that is to say, weconceive them as natural, on Man's level; when they are unknown, we callthem divine--as if our ignorance of a thing were the stamp of its divinity.If God is only to be left to the gaps in our knowledge, where shall we bewhen these gaps are filled up? And if they are never to be filled up, isGod only to be found in the disorders of the world? Those who yield to thetemptation to reserve a point here and there for special divineinterposition are apt to forget that this virtually excludes God from therest of the process. If God appears periodically, he disappearsperiodically. If he comes upon the scene at special crises he is absentfrom the scene in the intervals. Whether is all-God or occasional-God thenobler theory?"

Henry Drummond Ascent of Man 1894

“How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Problems with “God of the Gaps” Theology

OUTLINE










are needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor






“A scenario is suggested by which the universe and its laws could have arisen naturally from ‘nothing.’ Current cosmology suggests that no laws of physics were violated in bringing the universe into existence. The laws of physics themselves are shown to correspond to what one would expect if the universe appeared from nothing. There is something rather than nothing because something is more stable.”

“A scenario is suggested by which the universe and its laws could have arisen naturally from ‘nothing.’ Current cosmology suggests that no laws of physics were violated in bringing the universe into existence. The laws of physics themselves are shown to correspond to what one would expect if the universe appeared from nothing. There is something rather than nothing because something is more stable.”

Victor Stenger, in Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? The Self-Contained Universe



New York Times Bestseller!

Review of “Breaking the Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”Review of “Breaking the Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”

“Humans have brains that are big enough to be both self-aware and aware that others are self-aware. This “theory of mind” leads to a “Hyperactive Agent Detection Device” (HADD) that not only alerts us to real dangers, such as poisonous snakes, but also generates false positives, such as believing that rocks and trees are imbued with intentional minds or spirits… This is animism that, in the well-known historical sequence, leads to polytheism, and, eventually, monotheism. In other words, God is a false positive generated by our HADD.”

“Humans have brains that are big enough to be both self-aware and aware that others are self-aware. This “theory of mind” leads to a “Hyperactive Agent Detection Device” (HADD) that not only alerts us to real dangers, such as poisonous snakes, but also generates false positives, such as believing that rocks and trees are imbued with intentional minds or spirits… This is animism that, in the well-known historical sequence, leads to polytheism, and, eventually, monotheism. In other words, God is a false positive generated by our HADD.”

By Daniel C Dennett

Michael Shermer in Science Jan. 27, 2006



Daniel C. Dennett

What’s New by Bob Parks,American Physical Society Email

What’s New by Bob Parks,American Physical Society Email

“After all, we assume that events have natural causes. As we learn more about causes, God's domain keeps shrinking, or at least moving, like God's Little Acre in the Erskine Calwell novel. I leave the extrapolation to the reader.”

“After all, we assume that events have natural causes. As we learn more about causes, God's domain keeps shrinking, or at least moving, like God's Little Acre in the Erskine Calwell novel. I leave the extrapolation to the reader.”

"The legacy of the Enlightenment is the belief that entirely on our own we can know and in knowing, understand and in understanding, choose wisely. That self-confidence has risen with the exponential growth of scientific knowledge, which is being woven into an increasingly full explanatory web of cause and effect. In the course of our enterprise we have learned a great deal about ourselves as a species. We now better understand where humanity came from, and what it is. Homo Sapiens like the rest of life was self-assembled. So here we are, no one having guided us to this condition, no one looking over our shoulder, our future entirely up to us. Human autonomy having thus been recognized, we should now feel more disposed to reflect on where we wish to go."

"The legacy of the Enlightenment is the belief that entirely on our own we can know and in knowing, understand and in understanding, choose wisely. That self-confidence has risen with the exponential growth of scientific knowledge, which is being woven into an increasingly full explanatory web of cause and effect. In the course of our enterprise we have learned a great deal about ourselves as a species. We now better understand where humanity came from, and what it is. Homo Sapiens like the rest of life was self-assembled. So here we are, no one having guided us to this condition, no one looking over our shoulder, our future entirely up to us. Human autonomy having thus been recognized, we should now feel more disposed to reflect on where we wish to go."

E.O. Wilson, in Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge

“Naturalism is perhaps the dominant perspective or picture among contemporary Western intellectuals; its central tenet is that there is no God and nothing beyond nature. Human beings, therefore, must be understood, not in terms of their being image bearers of God, but in terms of their commonality with the rest of nature, i.e., nonhuman nature. The things we think distinctive about ourselves--religion, morality, love, scholarship, humor, adventure, politics--all must be understood in natural terms, which in our day means evolutionary terms.”

“Naturalism is perhaps the dominant perspective or picture among contemporary Western intellectuals; its central tenet is that there is no God and nothing beyond nature. Human beings, therefore, must be understood, not in terms of their being image bearers of God, but in terms of their commonality with the rest of nature, i.e., nonhuman nature. The things we think distinctive about ourselves--religion, morality, love, scholarship, humor, adventure, politics--all must be understood in natural terms, which in our day means evolutionary terms.”

Alvin Plantinga, Christian Philosophy at the End of the 20th Century

“Maybe Reason Isn’t Enough”“Maybe Reason Isn’t Enough”

“Upward of 90 percent of all Americans say they believe in God. But I bet a lot more than one of 10 also believe that science has got it basically right. Religion may offer a source of nostalgia, a sense of community, a consoling mythology, but without faith, without the experience of God, it is no protection from the crisis of spirit at the century’s end.

“Upward of 90 percent of all Americans say they believe in God. But I bet a lot more than one of 10 also believe that science has got it basically right. Religion may offer a source of nostalgia, a sense of community, a consoling mythology, but without faith, without the experience of God, it is no protection from the crisis of spirit at the century’s end.

New York Times Editorial, 1999

Marty Kaplan, former speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale, then a screenwriter and

movie producer.

Marty Kaplan, former speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale, then a screenwriter and

movie producer.

This is the sadness at the heart of our secular lives. No one wants to live in a pointless, chaotic cosmos, but that is the one that science has given us, and that our culture has largely championed. We may yearn for the divine, but our feet are stuck in the moral relativism (or even nihilism) that such a culture breeds. The post-modern Dadaism that’s hip today is the best we can do; everything’s a joke. But inside it feels awful. The things you want a God for - an afterlife, a comfort, a commander - seem unavailable”

This is the sadness at the heart of our secular lives. No one wants to live in a pointless, chaotic cosmos, but that is the one that science has given us, and that our culture has largely championed. We may yearn for the divine, but our feet are stuck in the moral relativism (or even nihilism) that such a culture breeds. The post-modern Dadaism that’s hip today is the best we can do; everything’s a joke. But inside it feels awful. The things you want a God for - an afterlife, a comfort, a commander - seem unavailable”

…it has proved incorrect to assume that the rigor of scientific methodology would constraint how far some scientists might go in claiming to be able to account for mysteries that are of central importance to religious belief.

Is it time to reconsider the complete rejection of “God of the gaps” arguments?

OUTLINE





• 1. Design in the Cosmos• 2. Design in Living things• 3. Design in Man• 4. Design in Ethics and

Morality


Morality

Is there Design in the Universe?

Design in the CosmosDesign in the Cosmos

“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these?

He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls them all by name

Because of his great power and mighty strength,

Not one of them is missing”

“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these?

He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls them all by name

Because of his great power and mighty strength,

Not one of them is missing”

Isaiah 40:38

1. Design in the Cosmos1. Design in the Cosmos

“That our sun, or any star, can be such a constant source of energy for so long is hardly an accident. The properties of nuclear reaction and gravitation must be just right. Nuclear reactions must take place to provide the sun’s energy, but if they are too abundant the sun would expand and blow-up – as many stars do, particularly the very old stars… The laws of physics need to be carefully balanced. “

“That our sun, or any star, can be such a constant source of energy for so long is hardly an accident. The properties of nuclear reaction and gravitation must be just right. Nuclear reactions must take place to provide the sun’s energy, but if they are too abundant the sun would expand and blow-up – as many stars do, particularly the very old stars… The laws of physics need to be carefully balanced. “

Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate



“For the approximately one hundred different chemical elements we have on earth to be here, in particular for the important elements carbon and oxygen to exist, the electrical and nuclear forces must be just right and balanced. Fred Hoyle, who discovered how carbon and oxygen could be formed by nuclear processes within stars, was much impressed. Although he was something of a religious skeptic, Hoyle wrote in the Caltech alumni journal:

“Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom… A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that some super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics… the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

“For the approximately one hundred different chemical elements we have on earth to be here, in particular for the important elements carbon and oxygen to exist, the electrical and nuclear forces must be just right and balanced. Fred Hoyle, who discovered how carbon and oxygen could be formed by nuclear processes within stars, was much impressed. Although he was something of a religious skeptic, Hoyle wrote in the Caltech alumni journal:

“Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom… A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that some super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics… the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Charles Townes

“The Biggest Fix in the Universe”“The Biggest Fix in the Universe”“The value of the dark energy mass density

measured by astronomers is some 120 powers of ten less than the “natural value” obtained by applying quantum theory… a mechanism that cancels to one part in 120 powers of ten, and then fails to cancel after that is something else entirely…. It would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation… just happened to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life… That level of flukiness is too much to swallow.

“The value of the dark energy mass density measured by astronomers is some 120 powers of ten less than the “natural value” obtained by applying quantum theory… a mechanism that cancels to one part in 120 powers of ten, and then fails to cancel after that is something else entirely…. It would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation… just happened to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life… That level of flukiness is too much to swallow.

Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot (2007)

Even atheistic scientists know that the universe appears

“designed”

Even atheistic scientists know that the universe appears

“designed”“The real mystery raised by modern cosmology concerns a silent

‘elephant in the room,’ an elephant, I might add, that has been a huge embarrassment to physicists: why is it that the universe has all of the appearances of having been specially designed just so that life forms like us can exist? This has puzzled scientists and at the same time encouraged those who prefer the false comfort of a creationist myth….. In the past most physicists (including me) have chosen to ignore the elephant – even to deny its existence. They preferred to believe that nature’s laws follow from some elegant mathematical principle and that the apparent design of the universe is merely a lucky accident. But recent discoveries in astronomy, cosmology, and above all, String Theory have left theoretical physicists little choice but to think about these things.”

“The real mystery raised by modern cosmology concerns a silent ‘elephant in the room,’ an elephant, I might add, that has been a huge embarrassment to physicists: why is it that the universe has all of the appearances of having been specially designed just so that life forms like us can exist? This has puzzled scientists and at the same time encouraged those who prefer the false comfort of a creationist myth….. In the past most physicists (including me) have chosen to ignore the elephant – even to deny its existence. They preferred to believe that nature’s laws follow from some elegant mathematical principle and that the apparent design of the universe is merely a lucky accident. But recent discoveries in astronomy, cosmology, and above all, String Theory have left theoretical physicists little choice but to think about these things.”

Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape. String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design

Is there Design in the Universe?Is there Design in the Universe?


Morality


Morality

Design in Living ThingsDesign in Living Things

“How many are your works, O Lord!

In wisdom you made them all;

the earth is full of your creatures.”

“How many are your works, O Lord!

In wisdom you made them all;

the earth is full of your creatures.”

Psalms 104:24

Miller-Urey ExperimentMiller-Urey Experiment

Methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen + sparks of electricity ->

Amino acids!

Miller & Urey, 1952

Methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen + sparks of electricity ->

Amino acids!

Miller & Urey, 1952



QuickTime™ and a decompressor


“The products of this early chemistry, dissolved in the oceans, forming a kind of organic “soup” of gradually increasing complexity, until, one day, quite by accident, a molecule arose which was able to make crude copies of itself, using as building blocks the other molecules in the soup. This was the ancestor of DNA, the mmmaster molecule of life on earth….

Carl Sagan, in “Cosmos,” 1970’s PBS series

“For those who are studying aspects of the origin of life, the question no longer seems to be whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components, but, rather, what pathway might have been followed.”

“For those who are studying aspects of the origin of life, the question no longer seems to be whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components, but, rather, what pathway might have been followed.”

National Academy of Sciences Website

Design in Life: Theoretically Simplest Self-Replicating CellDesign in Life: Theoretically

Simplest Self-Replicating Cell

“By identifying the genes shared by the simplest organisms, researchers have recently concluded that at least 250 or so are required for survival as a self-replicating cell. That’s about half the number present in the smallest known bacterial genome.”

Science, 1998

“By identifying the genes shared by the simplest organisms, researchers have recently concluded that at least 250 or so are required for survival as a self-replicating cell. That’s about half the number present in the smallest known bacterial genome.”

Science, 1998

New knowledge is opening, rather than closing, some gaps!

Making a Single ProteinMaking a Single ProteinOdds against forming a 100-amino-acid

protein by chance from the 20 natural amino acids:

P = 1 out of (20)100 = 1 out of (10)130

When functional alterations are allowed, this probability is reduced to

P = 1 out of (10)65

Odds against forming a 100-amino-acid protein by chance from the 20 natural amino acids:

P = 1 out of (20)100 = 1 out of (10)130

When functional alterations are allowed, this probability is reduced to

P = 1 out of (10)65

Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 7:306 1990

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

NEW YORK/Dec 9, 2004 A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Anthony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

http://abcnews.go.com

Anthony Flew now believes in GodAnthony Flew now believes in God

“I'm not sure how to express what a big deal this is. … for a half century professor Anthony Flew has been considered probably the number one living intellectual proponent of religious skepticism and atheism. I believe it may represent one of the seven seals of the apocalypse. Soon ….Michael Moore will be publicly repeating the Pledge of Allegiance. Any halfwit can jump up and down denouncing God, but for a half century professor Anthony Flew has been considered probably the number one living intellectual proponent of religious skepticism and atheism. …...

“I'm not sure how to express what a big deal this is. … for a half century professor Anthony Flew has been considered probably the number one living intellectual proponent of religious skepticism and atheism. I believe it may represent one of the seven seals of the apocalypse. Soon ….Michael Moore will be publicly repeating the Pledge of Allegiance. Any halfwit can jump up and down denouncing God, but for a half century professor Anthony Flew has been considered probably the number one living intellectual proponent of religious skepticism and atheism. …...

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/09/210618.php



Morality


Morality

Design in ManDesign in Man

“What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

You made him ruler over the works of your hands..”

“What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

You made him ruler over the works of your hands..”

Psalm 8:5,6

3. Design of Man: The puzzle of

consciousness 3. Design of Man: The puzzle of

consciousness

“Descartes identified the thinker with “himself” and himself with the immortal soul. Unsatisfied with [this], scientists try to explain human self-consciousness as a natural phenomenon. ….. In Being No One, the German philosopher Thomas Metzinger ….. a professor at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Germany, maintains that there are actually no autonomous selves in the material world. The perception that one is the source of thoughts and actions is an illusion… there are experiences, but no one who experiences; there are thoughts, but no thinker; action, but no actor.”

“Descartes identified the thinker with “himself” and himself with the immortal soul. Unsatisfied with [this], scientists try to explain human self-consciousness as a natural phenomenon. ….. In Being No One, the German philosopher Thomas Metzinger ….. a professor at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Germany, maintains that there are actually no autonomous selves in the material world. The perception that one is the source of thoughts and actions is an illusion… there are experiences, but no one who experiences; there are thoughts, but no thinker; action, but no actor.”

Review of “Being No One. The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity” by Thomas Metzinger. Reviewed in Science, 3 Oct., 2003

“I think, therefore I am” - Rene Descartes, 16h Century



Morality


Morality

Design in Ethics and Morality

Design in Ethics and Morality

“the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness…”

“the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness…”

Romans 2:15

A ‘Scientific’ Ethics?A ‘Scientific’ Ethics?• The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have

them do unto you” - Jesus• The Silver Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would

not have them do unto you.” - Gandhi• The Bronze Rule: “Do unto others as they do unto you.”

- Confucius• The Iron Rule: “Do unto others as you like, before they

do it unto you; or “He who has the gold makes the rules.”

• The Tin Rule: “Give precedence in all things to close relatives, and do as you like to others” - favored by evolutionary biologists as “kinship selection” or “I would die to save two or my sons, or four cousins or eight second cousins”

• The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” - Jesus

• The Silver Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” - Gandhi

• The Bronze Rule: “Do unto others as they do unto you.” - Confucius

• The Iron Rule: “Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you; or “He who has the gold makes the rules.”

• The Tin Rule: “Give precedence in all things to close relatives, and do as you like to others” - favored by evolutionary biologists as “kinship selection” or “I would die to save two or my sons, or four cousins or eight second cousins”

from Carl Sagan, Parade Magazine, 1993

A ‘Scientific’ Ethics?A ‘Scientific’ Ethics?“Game theory” run on computers tells us that the rule that works best is something in between the golden rule and the bronze rule - “If… ethical behavior were self-defeating, we would not call it ethical, but foolish” Carl Sagan Parade Magazine, Nov. 28, 1993

Is “what works best” the test of ethics?

How many heros have died young and apparently defeated? How many tyrants have lived out their days in relative peace and success?

Jesus’ Golden Rule landed him on the cross. And he left no offspring to carry his genes. Was he unethical?

OUTLINE





Re-assessing Bonhoeffer:Re-assessing Bonhoeffer:



The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature. Within the traditional theistic view of God as existing in a realm "beyond nature", as science progresses to explain more and more, the perceived scope of the role of God tends to shrink as a result.

“God of the gaps” - Defined

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

The Scientific Method:The Scientific Method:

A process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

A process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

If science, by definition, rejects the supernatural, and if all real knowledge, by common understanding, is scientific knowledge, then there is nothing that we can “know” that points to the existence of God. If, in addition, we reject the notion that evidence for God’s existence lies in any perceived limitations in what science might discover (i.e., we thoroughly reject any “God of the gaps” arguments), then, almost by definition, there can be no legitimate reason for believing in God.

An Intellectual Cul-de-Sac

How Science Becomes AtheismHow Science Becomes Atheism

“Let me be up front and state my own prejudices right here. I thoroughly believe that real science requires explanations that do not involve supernatural agents… Furthermore, I believe that physicists and cosmologists must also find a natural explanation of our world, including the amazing lucky accidents that conspired to make our own existence possible.”

“Let me be up front and state my own prejudices right here. I thoroughly believe that real science requires explanations that do not involve supernatural agents… Furthermore, I believe that physicists and cosmologists must also find a natural explanation of our world, including the amazing lucky accidents that conspired to make our own existence possible.”

Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape

How Science Becomes AtheismHow Science Becomes AtheismIn other words, science is defined by two characteristics: 1) It

rejects the supernatural. 2) It seeks to explain everything; indeed it “must” do so, according to Susskind. The first of these characteristics is frequently put forward as a methodology or as a boundary of the scientific discipline; that is, science does not deal with the supernatural, and hence any discussion of “design” - since it typically implies a creator - is excluded from scientific discourse. The second characteristic of science is to push hard against the boundaries of ignorance and to be confident of ultimate success. Each characteristic, on its own, sounds appealing. Together, however, they make philosophical naturalism – in essence, atheism – the very heartbeat of science.

In other words, science is defined by two characteristics: 1) It rejects the supernatural. 2) It seeks to explain everything; indeed it “must” do so, according to Susskind. The first of these characteristics is frequently put forward as a methodology or as a boundary of the scientific discipline; that is, science does not deal with the supernatural, and hence any discussion of “design” - since it typically implies a creator - is excluded from scientific discourse. The second characteristic of science is to push hard against the boundaries of ignorance and to be confident of ultimate success. Each characteristic, on its own, sounds appealing. Together, however, they make philosophical naturalism – in essence, atheism – the very heartbeat of science.

Are all “Design” arguments really “God of the gaps” arguments, or

arguments from ignorance?

Are all “Design” arguments really “God of the gaps” arguments, or

arguments from ignorance?• We do not know how the physical constants of

the universe were set, nor why they seem so well “tuned” for the existence of life.

• Recent discoveries in physics have revealed more and more extreme examples of “fine tuning” and have “increased the gap” that science must bridge.

• Is it therefore legitimate to use “fine tuning” as evidence against naturalism, or is this just another fallacious “God of the gaps” argument?

• We do not know how the physical constants of the universe were set, nor why they seem so well “tuned” for the existence of life.

• Recent discoveries in physics have revealed more and more extreme examples of “fine tuning” and have “increased the gap” that science must bridge.

• Is it therefore legitimate to use “fine tuning” as evidence against naturalism, or is this just another fallacious “God of the gaps” argument?

• We do not know how life could have self-assembled naturally, through the action of known physics and chemistry alone.

• The more we have learned about physics and chemistry and the structure of living things, the harder it has become to imagine that life assembled itself without guidance.

• Is it therefore legitimate to use the seeming impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life as evidence against naturalism?

• We do not know how life could have self-assembled naturally, through the action of known physics and chemistry alone.

• The more we have learned about physics and chemistry and the structure of living things, the harder it has become to imagine that life assembled itself without guidance.

• Is it therefore legitimate to use the seeming impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life as evidence against naturalism?

Are all “Design” arguments really “God of the gaps” arguments, or arguments from ignorance?

When do “explanatory gaps” imply that one’s ontology should be expanded?

When do “explanatory gaps” imply that one’s ontology should be expanded?

Magnetic field lines were introduced by Michael Faraday (1791-1867) who named them "lines of force."

Magnetic field lines were introduced by Michael Faraday (1791-1867) who named them "lines of force."


are needed to see this picture.http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whfldlns.html

Faraday's introduction of the concept of lines of force was [initially] rejected by most of the mathematical physicists of Europe, since they assumed that electric charges attract and repel one another, by action at a distance, making such lines unnecessary.

http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/xfaraday.html



Consciousness: The “explanatory gap”Consciousness: The “explanatory gap”

“I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. … we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience.”

“I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. … we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience.”

David Chalmers: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

My (Current) View:My (Current) View:

•Thus, unless the aspects of reality that are described poorly, or not at all, by science, are pointed out, there is little chance to persuade an atheist to consider “enlarging his ontology” beyond the purely material.

•Science, by its modern definition, can never find direct, positive, evidence for God, since God is not a hypothesis that the methodology of science can entertain.

•While it is true that God’s presence is to be found in all, not just some, aspects of the physical world, an unbeliever who sees no reason to believe in God is more likely to be persuaded to reconsider if he/she can be shown aspects of reality where God’s activity seems especially obvious.

•Pointing out specific areas (e.g., fine-tuning, origin of life) where God’s activity seems especially evident may risk creating a “God of the gaps.” However, it is also possible that a skeptic, once convinced (in part, by considering these gaps) that God exists, will then be able to see God at work elsewhere, such as in the life of Jesus, and through reading the Bible, than would be have been possible before a more limited “beachhead” belief in God has been established.

•Failure to point out the limits of science, at least as based on current knowledge, weakens one apologetics, and allows distortions to stand unchallenged among the scientific community and the broader public.

My (Current) View:My (Current) View:

Questions?

Revisiting the “God of the Gaps” Ron Larson. OUTLINE The “God of the gaps” pitfall in...

Documents

Transcript of Revisiting the “God of the Gaps” Ron Larson. OUTLINE The “God of the gaps” pitfall in...