Friday, 03 October 2008
-
BelieveorDoubt & "Alternatives to God of the Gaps Arguments"
Intro:
In BelieveorDoubt's Case for God, Part V after noting the futility of being impatient with the natural sciences, he asks, "Sure, natural causes might be brought in, but are they as good an explanation as God?"
My response:Well there are implausible versions of this and plausible ones. Three of the most popular gaps are "What caused the Big Bang?" "What created the first self replicating molecule?" and "What explains consciousness?" And yet, science doesn't seem to even bat an eyelash in continuing to investigate these areas. Why should they? There's a laundry list of supernatural claims associated with Biblical Christianity that could have panned out by now, from fortune telling to witchcraft, to the efficacy of prayer to magically communicating with a language you don't happen to know yourself. That's what the Bible says we should find in our world and that's what people today still claim they are able to do. There's no less than ad hoc reason our expectations should be different. A classic "gap" that would fit your criteria, in my opinion, would be a challenge long on the table. "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" If some unseen force replaced someone's arm or leg reliably, I find it hard to believe any naturalist would hold out for natural causes. They might want to rule out space aliens with superior technology or something, but if say only Christian missionaries could reliably pull off the feat, the collective case could easily tip in favor of their explanation of at least an unseen powerful intelligent agent associated with Christianity. That's a great deal more than you're likely ever going to find an atheist conceding and yet it seems to me we have nothing like it. So I think you are offering up a coherent possible category as an alternative to the abysmal "god of the gaps" argument...but I think the jury is already in on that count on many line items much easier to investigate.
Outro:
It should be noted BoD intends to use some Bayesian analysis in subsequent posts he is trying to set up. I have no idea where he is on taking the Bible seriously, so he might be arguing for deism. I don't know how you would apply such a probability analysis on such a disinterested deity that apparently doesn't meet even typical Christian expectations. What is there to even work with? I guess we'll find out as BoD continues his series, but I would wager to say he couldn't get it over 50/50 given naturalistic causes on normative issues of this debate have yet to be disproven (at the very least).
In my opinion, of course, for there to even be a coherent personal relationship (see the tag on "personal standards"), you have to have a clear cut 95% probability of a god's existence (see here). No one takes such 50/50 risks and marries that internet girl, sight unseen, who could just as easily be a dude who wants to rape your corpse. Hence, even something in the ballpark of climbing over a 50/50 teetering scale is about 40% too low for any of the popular gods if you expect to have a respectable foundation for a serious relationship of any kind. Maybe that's just me though...
Ben
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to WAR_ON_ERROR's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in WAR_ON_ERROR's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (8)
Hmm. Interesting. I can see how, no... I know how tempting it is to say, "God did it." But I also know that if something appears to be magical, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation behind it that isn't magical at all.
@face_the_strange - Pretty much all of these origin issues turn out to be beyond the scope of our immediate sensibilities.
Here's the problem with the supernatural - as soon as it's measureable, it isn't supernatural anymore. For example, disease used to be caused by unclean spirits, and then science revealed the more bizzare theory that it's actually caused by microscopic organisms feading on our tender flesh. Who knows what other common knowledge or uncomfortable unknowns will be overturned by scientific progress? - no god required.
@Andrea_TheNerd - So your definition of supernatural is the same as "non-existent." I don't see how that's helpful.
@WAR_ON_ERROR - I think what we have here is a communication failure.
@Andrea_TheNerd - A communications disruption can mean only one thing...invasion.
@WAR_ON_ERROR - Hmm.... Some things are never intended to intersect with reality. Others do, but only in the imaginary world of believers. The meaning of that word really seems to depend on the observer. But the again, we're all in the matrix anyway.
Nice Star Wars reference - it's always a good day for me that starts out with a SW quote. A trivial fact about Andrea is that I've seen that movie around 30-50 times, and have whole scenes memorized. My brother was 12 when it was released on tape (yes, tape), and he was obsessed with it. Me, I found my homework was easier to do with the sound of lazer blasts echoing around in the background.
@Andrea_TheNerd - I knew you'd get the reference. It sounded epic in that preview a long time ago in a pre-prequel era far far away...but then it was just kind of ho hum in context. I have episode 1 on VHS as well. Not sure why.