Atheism, Evidence and the God-of-the-Gaps

[Iroscato]

*Yawn* Same shit, different day.

[dyresand]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The problem with the "God-of-the-gaps" objection is that it can have unintended consequences for atheism. Specifically, it makes atheism impossible to falsify, in the same way that most religious beliefs cannot be falsified.  Rather than rely on science, "God-of-the-gaps" pushes atheism far away from being a scientific belief.

This is only the case if one mischaracterizes 'God of the gaps'.  The argument holds that, as science progresses, there is less and less for God to do, so theists are consequently forced to place God into narrower and narrower roles.  A common example of this is phototropic plants.  Since we now understand the mechanism whereby these plants physically turn to follow the sun, we can dispense with a miraculous or (if you prefer) a God-based explanation.

For example, evolutionary theory could be falsified by the discovery of modern animals that were fossilized in ancient rock layers, or what J.B.S. Haldane called “a Precambrian rabbit.” Likewise, the discovery of manuscript P52 of the Gospel of John, which is dated to the early second century, falsified the theory that the Gospel of John was not written until the year 150 A.D. or even later.

You, Popper and Haldane are right as far as it goes.  However - leaving aside the fact that the date of the codex P52 (it isn't a manuscript, by the way) is VERY much an open question, I don't see how this improves your case.  Atheism, like theism, is of course non-falsifiable, but then atheism isn't a scientific theory.  Never has been.  The fact that a lot of scientists also happen to be atheists is neither here nor there.

The rest of your cut-and-post is simply more of the same.

Boru

[Nope]

I have said before that making their god omnipotent/present/cient works against their god more than it works for it. Also the idea of perfection, which apparently does not exclude someone from making mistakes. Not sure what the point of perfection is, if it still allows for screw-ups, but that's how it is in the bible.

This is one of the main reasons why I could never believe in the Christian version of god. All those omnis mean that either the biblical god is evil or he can't exist.

If there is an all powerful, all knowing, ever present deity then it knows how to convince me to believe in it. According to the bible, this particular deity had no problem performing very obvious miracles in the past. There is no reason that he can't now...unless he doesn't exist.

As far as god appearing in the sky or healing amputees arms , it is true, I would look for a natural explanation but, if a god is behind the growing of a limb then I might eventually come to the conclusion that such a being exists. Of course, no god has answered an amputee's prayers and spontaneously regrown a limb. Dead people aren't being brought to life. A giant man isn't hovering above the skies so we can all see. None of that is happening so we can't really say how we would react. It sounds more likely that Trent Horn is bothered by the god of the gaps argument and is looking for a way to  retain his faith.

[Ravenshire]

Randy, that article is one great big straw man. No wonder you like it.

[Exian]

I love that article! It's nice to see how little Christians know about atheism, and very considerate of them to show their hand.

I'm fairly certain that the only people convinced by this article are the already convinced/religiously biased.

[Exian]

The problem with this article, for me, is that it says atheism is a claim (unfalsifiable at that) but to me it's a tentative conclusion.

Theist: There is a god.

Atheist: Until you show me proof, I do not believe your claim.

Theist: Prove it.

???

[JuliaL]

Suppose...that on next Tuesday morning, just after breakfast, all of us in this one world are knocked to our knees by a percussive and ear-shattering thunderclap...the heavens open—the clouds pull apart—revealing an unbelievably immense and Zeus-like figure, towering above us like a hundred Everests. He frowns darkly as lightning plays across the features of his Michaelangeloid face. He then points down—at me!—and exclaims, for every man, woman and child to hear "I have had quite enough of your too-clever logic-chopping and word-watching in matters of theology. Be assured, N.R. Hanson, that I do most certainly exist. (N.R. Hanson. What I Do Not Believe and Other Essays. Springer, 1971)

If God did this, then surely we would know he existed, right? Well, why wouldn’t this kind of evidence also be subject to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection? Just because we don’t know how a giant man can appear in the sky doesn’t mean there is no natural explanation for him. Maybe aliens or time-travelers are at work, deceiving us?

Agreed, without godlike powers you can't know absolutely that the evidence for a god is not false or contrived.
So, barring having those, you are correct in your contention that no evidence is absolute proof.
Unless a deity gives such powers, we poor mortals must apportion our belief to the evidence knowing that that knowledge will never be without some doubt.
And the evidence for the Christian god is so meager.
It is indistinguishable from tales told to illiterate goatherds by slightly more clever clerics which provided the clerics with a livelihood without actually having to work for it.  Or to make sufficient distinctions requires Olympic class mental gymnastics.
Religion is just the worlds oldest scam.
It is slightly newer than the world's oldest profession which is a little newer than the world's oldest lie,"Of course I'll respect you in the morning."

[Aroura]

The problem with the "God-of-the-gaps" objection is that it can have unintended consequences for atheism. Specifically, it makes atheism impossible to falsify, in the same way that most religious beliefs cannot be falsified. Rather than rely on science, "God-of-the-gaps" pushes atheism far away from being a scientific belief.

If there was atheistic dogma, and our lack of belief was based heavily on the god-of-the-gaps (science will fill it in eventually) argument, you might have a point.

But there isn't, and we don't.  So this entire article is moot.

[Cyberman]

Rather than argue from what we don’t know (or “God-of-the-gaps”), good arguments for theism take what we do know and show how it logically leads to the transcendent creator of the universe.

So, starting with your conclusion and then looking for ways to lead to it; as distinct from following the evidence where it leads.

If that's how you want to argue your case, then fine. Just be honest that that's what you're doing.