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

[Randy Carson]

Frequently, members of this forum suggest that theists are guilty of a "god-of-the-gaps" reasoning. But is that true? Or does the God-of-the-Gaps argument actually boomerang back on its proponents?

I'd like to discuss the conclusions of the following article with anyone who cares to read it. Enjoy!

---

Atheism, Evidence, and the God-of-the-Gaps
By Trent Horn
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-of-the-gaps/

Many atheists say that all arguments for the existence of God rely on fallacious “God-of-the-gaps” reasoning.

They claim that any evidence offered for the existence of God, such as the beginning, contingency, and fine-tuning of the universe, are nothing more than appeals to ignorance. These arguments are supposedly on par with primitive explanations of natural events (such as lightning) that erroneously included God as a direct cause. Modern arguments for theism are likewise lampooned as primitive “God did it” explanations that will be usurped by modern science.

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.

Why is that the case?

A claim is falsifiable if evidence can be presented that can disprove it (Karl Popper argued that this was a necessary condition for a claim to be scientific). 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.

So, can atheism be falsified? An atheist might say, “Of course atheism can be falsified—just prove that God exists!”

But how exactly is the theist supposed to do this? Usually atheists demand some kind of over-the-top display of power to confirm God's existence. The late N.R. Hanson gave one such piece of evidence that would convince him:

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?

Even “low-key” evidence is vulnerable to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection. Some atheists say that if Christian preachers could heal amputated limbs, that would convince them God existed. But once again, aren’t we just taking a gap in our knowledge (“I don’t know how these limbs are being healed”) and filling it with, “Therefore, God did it?”

Atheists have two options. First, they could admit that no amount of evidence could satisfy the “God-of-the gaps-objection” and show God exists. This would leave atheism behind the safe veil of protection that cloaks other unfalsifiable beliefs, such as the belief the entire world is a computer simulation.

If atheists say that atheism does not claim "There is no God," only that some people lack a belief in God, then atheism can't be true at all. A belief can only be true (in a non-trivial sense) when it makes a claim about the world and not just about someone's state of mind. Saying "I lack a belief in God" no more informs us about reality than saying "I lack a belief in aliens" informs us about the facts related to extraterrestrial life.

Second, if these options proved unsatisfactory, atheists could instead put forward strict standards of what kind of evidence would falsify atheism and prove God exists. Although, if those standards included extremely improbable events or something coming from nothing (such as perfect prophecy or healing an amputee) then the traditional arguments for God come back into play, since they include similar phenomena about the universe (such as cosmic fine-tuning and the origin of the universe in the finite past) in order to show God exists.

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.

[Cato]

So, can atheism be falsified?

Show me a god and there's no argument. Until then you're full of shit. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

[abaris]

Again, without going into the details of the above:

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE

Atheists usually don't make absolute claims. The only defining feature of atheism is disbelief because there's no evidence for god, any god. Obviously there are things we can't explain, but we don't feel the need to explain the unknown.

A few times I brought up that you're still a caveman at heart, looking up at the sun and the moon, not knowing what they are and since you're uncomfortable with their unexplained presence, you call them gods. That's what you're doing.

Not my invention, but it's pretty fitting for the situation at hand: Atheism is a faith in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Chad32]

Atheism is the disbelief in gods. I can prove I;m an atheist by not going to church, or involving myself in religious practices when I'm not with religious people. God of the gaps is still on theists when they claim their god is the originator of the universe prior to proving that a god exists.

Good evidence could be anything that can't be explained through natural means. We don't know that this is possible, except that the Abrahamic god is supposedly capable of bringing the dead back to life, pulling the sea apart, causing frogs to rain from the sky, and so forth. If the bible is true, and all the events happened, then it should be enough to perform the miracles that your god has already demonstrated that he can do.

No one has ever made the connection between natural causes, and a creator. Certainly not any specific creator.

[LastPoet]

So, can atheism be falsified?

Show me a god and there's no argument. Until then you're full of shit. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

I have asked the same in another thread Cato. Got a couple of bible verses. It's fucking pointless.

[dyresand]

Bullshit here is some evidence of no god. If there is or was a god there would be no atheism. The only thing would be is being people Anti god.
But no one can be Anti god because there is no god to begin with. In this case people are against fictional beings in a book who you call god.

[Minimalist]

http://trenthorn.com/

Trent Horn is an apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, an apostolate that is dedicated to explaining and defending the Catholic faith. He specializes in teaching Catholics how to graciously defend their faith with sound arguments and persuasive communication techniques.

The both of you can graciously fuck off.

[Tonus]

The 'god of the gaps' argument refers to any question for which a definitive answer is not known, that is therefore attributed to god(s).  The example of lightning is pretty clear in this regard.  Until we learned how lightning is formed and why it occurs, a person could state that lightning was a supernatural event of some sort.  If doubt was expressed regarding his claim, he could ask if they had any better guesses.  Lacking clear knowledge of the nature and cause of lightning, one could fill that "gap" by claiming it was a sign from god.  Once we learned enough about it to dismiss god as a cause, it is no longer a gap in our knowledge.  God as a potential cause is no longer claimed, lest the claimant be thought mad or an idiot.

It continues to be applied to any event or area where sufficient knowledge is lacking, such as the formation of life or the origins of the universe.  A lack of knowledge allows for people to make claims regarding those events or areas without having to provide evidence, because those who doubt the claims cannot produce a sufficient explanation of their own.  It continues to be unconvincing as an argument, in part because it's a poor argument to make, and in greater part because every time we answer questions about our world or universe, we don't find gods or spirits or the supernatural anywhere in there.  "I don't know" is not reason enough to claim that your hypothesis is valid.  "I don't know, and history shows that your claims never end up being the explanation" makes god claims inexcusable anymore.

You ask "how is the theist supposed to prove that god exists?"  Perhaps a more relevant question is "why isn't god taking care of that particular detail?"  How might god reveal himself so that no one could doubt it was him?  Erm... wouldn't an all-knowing god be able to figure it out?  It can't be that difficult for a fellow who spun a whole universe off of his fingertips.  Yet the best he seems capable of is the occasional cameo (these being so unimpressive that he finally stopped doing them a couple thousand years ago) and these days he's limited himself to bumps in the night and burn marks on toast.  It's just the sort of thing one might expect when you combine a non-existent deity with a comically superstitious species which is still scared by its own collective shadow far too often.

[Jenny A]

Frequently, members of this forum suggest that theists are guilty of a "god-of-the-gaps" reasoning. But is that true? Or does the God-of-the-Gaps argument actually boomerang back on its proponents?

I'd like to discuss the conclusions of the following article with anyone who cares to read it. Enjoy!

---

Atheism, Evidence, and the God-of-the-Gaps
By Trent Horn
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-of-the-gaps/

Many atheists say that all arguments for the existence of God rely on fallacious “God-of-the-gaps” reasoning.

They claim that any evidence offered for the existence of God, such as the beginning, contingency, and fine-tuning of the universe, are nothing more than appeals to ignorance. These arguments are supposedly on par with primitive explanations of natural events (such as lightning) that erroneously included God as a direct cause. Modern arguments for theism are likewise lampooned as primitive “God did it” explanations that will be usurped by modern science.

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.

Why is that the case?

A claim is falsifiable if evidence can be presented that can disprove it (Karl Popper argued that this was a necessary condition for a claim to be scientific). 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.

So, can atheism be falsified? An atheist might say, “Of course atheism can be falsified—just prove that God exists!”

But how exactly is the theist supposed to do this? Usually atheists demand some kind of over-the-top display of power to confirm God's existence. The late N.R. Hanson gave one such piece of evidence that would convince him:

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?

Even “low-key” evidence is vulnerable to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection. Some atheists say that if Christian preachers could heal amputated limbs, that would convince them God existed. But once again, aren’t we just taking a gap in our knowledge (“I don’t know how these limbs are being healed”) and filling it with, “Therefore, God did it?”

Atheists have two options. First, they could admit that no amount of evidence could satisfy the “God-of-the gaps-objection” and show God exists. This would leave atheism behind the safe veil of protection that cloaks other unfalsifiable beliefs, such as the belief the entire world is a computer simulation.

If atheists say that atheism does not claim "There is no God," only that some people lack a belief in God, then atheism can't be true at all. A belief can only be true (in a non-trivial sense) when it makes a claim about the world and not just about someone's state of mind. Saying "I lack a belief in God" no more informs us about reality than saying "I lack a belief in aliens" informs us about the facts related to extraterrestrial life.

Second, if these options proved unsatisfactory, atheists could instead put forward strict standards of what kind of evidence would falsify atheism and prove God exists. Although, if those standards included extremely improbable events or something coming from nothing (such as perfect prophecy or healing an amputee) then the traditional arguments for God come back into play, since they include similar phenomena about the universe (such as cosmic fine-tuning and the origin of the universe in the finite past) in order to show God exists.

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.

Seriously.  I don't know how is not proof of any particular how.  That's all there is to the god of the gaps fallacy. 

Atheism really is merely a lack of belief in god.  So is it falsifiable.  All you need do is show god.  Yep, it's a very tall order as sufficiently advanced tech looks like magic.  Ah hah you say, so it is unfalsifiable.  Well no, actually it's just that you defined god as an unprovable hypothesis. It's easy to do.  I posit an invisible purple nothing that no one else can detect that makes me feel good.  Prove me wrong.  The thing is that making such a claim, doesn't make the thing claimed any more likely.

However, if you define god as omnipotent, then you have really tripped up, as by definition an omnipotent being could proof itself, it's definitional.

[Chad32]

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.