Topic: Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations (Read 1459 times)

Copernicus · « **on:** February 13, 2006, 11:30:20 PM »

My first argument addressed the failure of revelation as a credible source for belief in gods. The second argument has to do with the historical use of gods to explain unexplained natural phenomena. We see this approach most in evidence today from those who seek to explain alleged yet-to-be-explained cases of biological evolution: so-called "intelligent design". In its most general form, this argument is often characterized as a "God of the Gaps" argument, in that gods are typically used to explain gaps in our knowledge. As we discover natural causes for previously unexplained observations, we abandon the god-explanations. Never the reverse.

The central point here is that gods are only useful as explanations when we don't have a better natural explanation. Over the centuries, the trend has been for us to appeal less and less to supernatural explanations. A reasonable extrapolation of this trend is that no supernatural explanation is reasonable.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2006, 07:56:04 AM »

I am SO glad that you have made a separate thread on this. I think that this argument is common, but it is over-blown, over-generalized, and otherwise strained out of the historical record.

Also, I think you have got some misunderstandings built into this. You talk about explaining by virtue of 'gods' but then you characterize it as a "God of the Gaps" argument. God, capital 'G' usually refers to a monotheistic concept of God which is categorically different than the pantheon of gods found in various mythologies and in Hinduism, etc. This is an attempt to have everything all at once, as though if you produced an example of explanation via gods you have substantiated a 'God of the Gaps' assertion.

I think you should clarify the argument. If monotheism is your target, then it is from the monotheistic theologies that you should generate your examples. If monotheism is not your target, you should re-state it to 'gods of the gaps' or something similar.

With that said, I would like three specific examples offered from history.

At some point we'll come back and address your poor substitution- "Naturalism of the gaps" As if providing an 'explanation' means saying something true! lol

Stathei · « **Reply #2 on:** February 14, 2006, 11:04:49 AM »

The "gap" is now down to about 13 nanoseconds...

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2006, 02:42:27 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Also, I think you have got some misunderstandings built into this. You talk about explaining by virtue of 'gods' but then you characterize it as a "God of the Gaps" argument. God, capital 'G' usually refers to a monotheistic concept of God which is categorically different than the pantheon of gods found in various mythologies and in Hinduism, etc. This is an attempt to have everything all at once, as though if you produced an example of explanation via gods you have substantiated a 'God of the Gaps' assertion.

Sntjohnny, notice that the 'G' in 'Gap' is also capitalized. I made no attempt to limit this thread to monotheism. Originally, people attributed all sorts of natural phenomena to gods. After centuries of fumbling the explanations, we are reduced to just one god and even more natural phenomena that we can't explain the physical causes of. Our gods (or God) have chased after our ignorance as it has receded, always managing to lodge themselves in unexplained details.

Quote

I think you should clarify the argument. If monotheism is your target, then it is from the monotheistic theologies that you should generate your examples. If monotheism is not your target, you should re-state it to 'gods of the gaps' or something similar.

Monotheism is a red herring in this thread.

Quote

With that said, I would like three specific examples offered from history.

There are so many.

1. Weather phenomena (including, most recently a passle of explanations for Hurricane Katrina).
2. Celestial bodies such as the sun and the moon--lots of gods to explain those.
3. The origin of the species--most thoroughly explained by Darwin in non-theistic terms.

Quote

At some point we'll come back and address your poor substitution- "Naturalism of the gaps" As if providing an 'explanation' means saying something true! lol

Actually, we all engage in "naturalism of the gaps". You don't attribute everything you see to magic or invisible spirits. It is the explanations attributed to spiritual agents that we have the dispute over. Those ALWAYS retreat in the face of reasonable physical explanations.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2006, 04:05:27 PM »

"Monotheism is a red herring in this thread."

That depends. Monotheists have not engaged in the type of explanations you are suggesting. As such, they do not belong to your argument.

"1. Weather phenomena (including, most recently a passle of explanations for Hurricane Katrina)."

heh, well we don't really claim Pat Robertson on this side. Although I did find it funny that the Muslims that thought Katrina was a judgment on America had nothing to say about the Tsunamis.

Historically speaking, weather phenomena was in fact attributed to gods. It was not, however, attributed in the same way to God.

"2. Celestial bodies such as the sun and the moon--lots of gods to explain those."

Again, same as above. Newton, you will recall, believed in God, but had no problem at all in describing the motions of the celestial bodies, or considering them as conceivably the same as our own sun. Neither did Copernicus or Kepler. All are Christians. What they did say was that the laws and order of the universe was of God. This is not very controversial or evidence for your premise. You can take the natural laws as brute fact or you can ascribe them to God. But you cannot use natural laws to explain why there are natural laws. So, your premise is true on this in regards to the pantheon, but not true in regards to monotheists- Christian ones in particular.

"3. The origin of the species--most thoroughly explained by Darwin in non-theistic terms."

This is probably your only example that borders on the legitimate. However, this raises the question as to whether or not merely coming up with an explanation means that you've said anything true. As I have constantly pointed out to you, even Dawkins admits that life 'appears to be designed.' There is prima facie evidence of design in life, even if we decide for the sake of discussion that we cannot make a scientific case for it. You don't have to. I can come up with a strictly naturalistic mechanism for how my hosue was made, too, but my imaginative ability does not mean I've said anything true about how my house was made, as though any strictly naturalistic explanation is better than any invoking intelligent agency.

Explaining away something that is otherwise discerned on its face is not necessarily superior.

"Actually, we all engage in "naturalism of the gaps". You don't attribute everything you see to magic or invisible spirits."

Of course not, because I'm a Christian theist. And if you knew what that meant, you'd know why Christian theists throughout the centuries- strong, reputable scientists, didn't either. Nor did they invoke any kind of 'gap' argument. It hasn't anything to do with their deference to their 'god,' but rather to the philosophical framework of the whole thing in the first place. All this you appear to be completely ignorant about, which strikes me as very odd, given your username.

But what really lurks behind your statement is that you think the reason why 'naturalism of the gaps' is more valid is because you think it works. That's a purely practical determination. But it is a practical determination that actually rests on the Christian point of view that God created a world that is orderly and can be discovered and explored. It rests on the view that the tree is not god. And since the tree is not god, you can cut it up without killing any nymphs and study the thing.

Your whole ability to make this argument is derived by Christian philosopher-scientists who strove to make a distinction between the creator and creation, a distinction that the pagan pantheons did not. This does not prevent you from trying to lump them all together, anyway, though, does it?

Copernicus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 14, 2006, 11:42:37 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Monotheism is a red herring in this thread."

That depends. Monotheists have not engaged in the type of explanations you are suggesting. As such, they do not belong to your argument.

Actually, they do. The retreat of gods in the face of diminishing ignorance did not slow with the rise of monotheistic religions. During medieval times, there were plenty of God-explanations for natural phenomena that turned out to have better materialist explanations.

Quote

"1. Weather phenomena (including, most recently a passle of explanations for Hurricane Katrina)."

heh, well we don't really claim Pat Robertson on this side. Although I did find it funny that the Muslims that thought Katrina was a judgment on America had nothing to say about the Tsunamis.

Historically speaking, weather phenomena was in fact attributed to gods. It was not, however, attributed in the same way to God.

In the absence of any defense of your bald-faced assertion, I can only reply "nonsense". And, BTW, both pat Roberston and Muslims are counted by you as fellow monotheistists, no?

Quote

"2. Celestial bodies such as the sun and the moon--lots of gods to explain those."

Again, same as above. Newton, you will recall, believed in God, but had no problem at all in describing the motions of the celestial bodies, or considering them as conceivably the same as our own sun. Neither did Copernicus or Kepler. All are Christians. What they did say was that the laws and order of the universe was of God. This is not very controversial or evidence for your premise. You can take the natural laws as brute fact or you can ascribe them to God. But you cannot use natural laws to explain why there are natural laws. So, your premise is true on this in regards to the pantheon, but not true in regards to monotheists- Christian ones in particular.

Actually, you are discounting the fact that all of these men were repudiated by Christian authorities. Even though Copernicus' original treatise was endorsed by his pope, the church subsequently repudiated him and burned his books. Just because some Christians got out ahead of the pack, that does not negate where the pack was in the first place. Religious authorities have historically resisted the advance of science, because they correctly perceived that advance as being at their own expense. However, religious institutions have been forced into retreat. They always dig trenches, but are forced to abandon them in the end. The latest "intelligent design" controversy is but a footnote in the never-ending battle by religious forces to hold back the advance of our understanding of how nature works.

Quote

"3. The origin of the species--most thoroughly explained by Darwin in non-theistic terms."

This is probably your only example that borders on the legitimate. However, this raises the question as to whether or not merely coming up with an explanation means that you've said anything true. As I have constantly pointed out to you, even Dawkins admits that life 'appears to be designed.' There is prima facie evidence of design in life, even if we decide for the sake of discussion that we cannot make a scientific case for it. You don't have to. I can come up with a strictly naturalistic mechanism for how my hosue was made, too, but my imaginative ability does not mean I've said anything true about how my house was made, as though any strictly naturalistic explanation is better than any invoking intelligent agency.

Taking Dawkins out of context, you misrepresent him egregiously and completely miss the point. ALL religious explanations have the same kind of "appearance to be designed" before one understands that natural, physical causes. Once the true nature is discovered, the religious explanations are reluctantly abandoned. Dawkins is just highlighting the latest trend--the attempt to explain the origin of species in terms of a divine intervention. Once humanity came to understand that we grew to fit into the environment (rather than the environment being tailor-made for us by some kind of external agency), the bulk of the religious community reluctantly got on board, leaving behind a still angry bunch of foot-draggers.

Quote

Explaining away something that is otherwise discerned on its face is not necessarily superior.

Explaining it with clear, easily verifiable evidence is. And that is precisely what scientists have done. Those who cling to outmoded scriptural explanations are left to raise whatever roadblocks they can in the face of a growing consensus.

Quote

"Actually, we all engage in "naturalism of the gaps". You don't attribute everything you see to magic or invisible spirits."

Of course not, because I'm a Christian theist. And if you knew what that meant, you'd know why Christian theists throughout the centuries- strong, reputable scientists, didn't either. Nor did they invoke any kind of 'gap' argument. It hasn't anything to do with their deference to their 'god,' but rather to the philosophical framework of the whole thing in the first place. All this you appear to be completely ignorant about, which strikes me as very odd, given your username.

You forget the treatment of my namesake's legacy. His intellectual descendant, Gallileo, was even threatened with torture, lest he recant his copernican heresies. Scientists, despite their attempts to appease their religious peers, have always had to fight the headwinds of orthodoxy. How easily you dismiss the ignoble legacy of Christian orthodoxy.

Quote

But what really lurks behind your statement is that you think the reason why 'naturalism of the gaps' is more valid is because you think it works. That's a purely practical determination. But it is a practical determination that actually rests on the Christian point of view that God created a world that is orderly and can be discovered and explored. It rests on the view that the tree is not god. And since the tree is not god, you can cut it up without killing any nymphs and study the thing.

You have it reversed. It is the growing Christian point of view that actual rests on the practical discoveries that fly in the face of its historical legacy.

Quote

Your whole ability to make this argument is derived by Christian philosopher-scientists who strove to make a distinction between the creator and creation, a distinction that the pagan pantheons did not. This does not prevent you from trying to lump them all together, anyway, though, does it?

Don't be silly. Empirical methodologies were developed by ancients in both India and Greece. The Greeks were well aware that the earth was a sphere, and they even measured its dimensions. Their legacy was lost to Christians and had to be reintroduced to Europe by muslims. The fact that Christian scientists dug themselves out of their hole is testimony to the distance that they were able to put between themselves and rigid religious orthodoxy. That had, in no small part, to do with the Protestant Reformation, which caused Christians to challenge hidebound ecclesiastical authorities. And it was the Age of Reason that finally led to secularism and the emancipation of the human mind from the slavery of religious orthodoxy.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2006, 09:09:45 AM »

"Actually, they do." [....] During medieval times, there were plenty of God-explanations for natural phenomena that turned out to have better materialist explanations."

Examples, please.

""Historically speaking, weather phenomena was in fact attributed to gods. It was not, however, attributed in the same way to God.""

"In the absence of any defense of your bald-faced assertion, I can only reply "nonsense". And, BTW, both pat Roberston and Muslims are counted by you as fellow monotheistists, no?"

If we were going to reply 'nonsense' to bald-faced assertions, I'd counter every single one of your posts, ever, by simply saying 'nonsense.' How nice for you that I don't, eh?

Going after Pat Robertson and the Muslims is a bit like deciding to pick on the weakest link. If you want to pluck one man out of a billion Christians and use that to make your case, I can't stop you. I can just sit back here and laugh. Similarly, if you want to pluck one era out of dozens of eras (re: 'medieval times'), I can't stop, you either. But I thank you for the good laugh.

"Actually, you are discounting the fact that all of these men were repudiated by Christian authorities."

I'm not discounting anything.

"Even though Copernicus' original treatise was endorsed by his pope,"

Oh, so not ALL of the men.

You can't salvage your point by ignoring what I just said, which runs completely contrary to your argument. Even if we granted that there were elements of the church that didn't like some things done by their members, the church did not think that a tree was a god and rain was the sperm of Baal. Its a categorial difference. Its an important distinction.

"Taking Dawkins out of context, you misrepresent him egregiously and completely miss the point."

That is your opinion. Thankfully, anyone who wants can look at the statement themselves. His whole book is one giant argument from guillibility.

"ALL religious explanations have the same kind of "appearance to be designed" before one understands that natural, physical causes."

As I just illustrated, that is not true. For you, a 'religious explanation' is any explanation given by a religious person. That's such an unhelpful characterization, I can't even begin to explain why.

"Explaining it with clear, easily verifiable evidence is. And that is precisely what scientists have done."

Sure, like Newton, Pascal, Pasteur..... None of these (and hundreds more) had any problem using clear, easily verifiable evidence. They rested on two philosophical points that derived from the Christian worldview: 1. The universe was NOT God. 2. The universe had an order that could be counted on so that it could be studied.

Now, you can disagree with that if you want, but all it would do is show that you are ignorant of history, or so utterly biased that you cannot even read history objectively. There is SO much historical material on the point you'd have to be positively daft to miss it. You can trace it all the way back to Aristotle and Plato: there is a reason why the Christian community had such an affinity for these philosophers.

If people in 'medieval times' deviated from the intellectual foundations that had been laid prior, that does not mean that they hadn't been laid.

Your "God of the Gaps" argument applies ONLY to the pagan pantheons.

"You forget the treatment of my namesake's legacy."

I really don't.

"How easily you dismiss the ignoble legacy of Christian orthodoxy. "

I assure you, I know more about the ignoble legacy of Christian orthodoxy than YOU do.

Answer a very simple question: Is there any time in Christian history where Christians (orthodox would be nice, but I don't think it matters) believed that rain was God's sperm? That thunder was Jesus bowling?

"Don't be silly."

You've got so many of your facts wrong in the paragraph that follows it that I don't even want to bother dealing with them right now. Answer my question above.

Copernicus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 15, 2006, 06:56:51 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Actually, they do." [....] During medieval times, there were plenty of God-explanations for natural phenomena that turned out to have better materialist explanations."

Examples, please.

In addition to those that are under discussion? Do you think that people thought plagues, famines, and wars had nothing to do with God? BTW, I consider phenomena attributed to Satan to fall into the same genre as "God explanation", since they depend on religious belief to sustain them.

Quote

Going after Pat Robertson and the Muslims is a bit like deciding to pick on the weakest link. If you want to pluck one man out of a billion Christians and use that to make your case, I can't stop you. I can just sit back here and laugh. Similarly, if you want to pluck one era out of dozens of eras (re: 'medieval times'), I can't stop, you either. But I thank you for the good laugh.

When I cite concrete examples, you pooh-pooh them. When I make generalizations, you ask for concrete examples. So that you can pooh-pooh them.

If you want concrete examples of what people literally believed in medieval times, visit some Catholic churches in Europe. Catholics excelled in depicting the horrors that God inflicted on sinners--pestilence, death, famine, torture. I don't think that you are going to convince anyone that such views were incidental to religion. I'm sure that many a condemned witch had that point driven home to her.

Quote

"ALL religious explanations have the same kind of "appearance to be designed" before one understands that natural, physical causes."

As I just illustrated, that is not true. For you, a 'religious explanation' is any explanation given by a religious person. That's such an unhelpful characterization, I can't even begin to explain why.

That's because you have misrepresented me, just as you misrepresent people like Dawkins. I have never argued that a 'religious explanation' is "any explanation given by a religious person." It is an explanation that is based on religious belief. For example, the argument that God created the species and that they could not have arisen naturally is a 'religious argument'. Although such an argument could only be made by a religious person, it is not just the religious faith of the arguer that makes it a religious agument.

Quote

"Explaining it with clear, easily verifiable evidence is. And that is precisely what scientists have done."

Sure, like Newton, Pascal, Pasteur..... None of these (and hundreds more) had any problem using clear, easily verifiable evidence. They rested on two philosophical points that derived from the Christian worldview: 1. The universe was NOT God. 2. The universe had an order that could be counted on so that it could be studied.

Here's where you have to eat your own crow. The scientific theories of Newton, Pascal, and Pasteur were not inspired by religion. They just happened to be religious people who made those arguments. On the one hand, you accuse me of defining religious arguments in terms of the religiosity of the proponents. On the other, you take exactly this position when you point to those scientists as examples of religion promoting science.

Quote

Now, you can disagree with that if you want, but all it would do is show that you are ignorant of history, or so utterly biased that you cannot even read history objectively. There is SO much historical material on the point you'd have to be positively daft to miss it. You can trace it all the way back to Aristotle and Plato: there is a reason why the Christian community had such an affinity for these philosophers.

And what was that? Show us that you understand history by explaining why the Christian community valued them over, say, Sextus Empiricus or Philo of Larissa--men who really established the principle upon which scientific investigation came to be based.

Quote

Your "God of the Gaps" argument applies ONLY to the pagan pantheons.

OK, that's your opinion. A conclusion that you've come to. Do you have any argument to back it up? We've only seen the Roman Catholic Church apologize for what they did to Galileo in recent memory. It took just a few hundred years for them to admit that they were wrong. God of the gaps with a vengeance.

Quote

"You forget the treatment of my namesake's legacy."

I really don't.

Possibly, you were just ignorant of it then.

Quote

"How easily you dismiss the ignoble legacy of Christian orthodoxy. "

I assure you, I know more about the ignoble legacy of Christian orthodoxy than YOU do.

Aren't you the person who had complained bitterly in the past about how I pretend to know what is in your mind when I really don't? By gosh, yes. That was you, wasn't it? Here being hoisted by your own petard.

Quote

Answer a very simple question: Is there any time in Christian history where Christians (orthodox would be nice, but I don't think it matters) believed that rain was God's sperm? That thunder was Jesus bowling?

Of course not. I have never claimed that Christians have endorsed every crackpot idea ever invented, and it is a complete strawman caricature of my position to imply that I have.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2006, 08:44:18 PM »

"In addition to those that are under discussion? Do you think that people thought plagues, famines, and wars had nothing to do with God?"

That's not what I'm saying. However, its clear to me you only have a handful of pet examples. I am wondering if you can substantiate any of them, or if their just random pot shots.

"When I cite concrete examples, you pooh-pooh them."

Because they are not concrete examples. Saying that some dude in the middle ages attributed an earthquake to God is a good start, but how about a name and a reference? Let's put your allegations in context.

"When I make generalizations, you ask for concrete examples. So that you can pooh-pooh them."

You are trying to make a general argument, which is only justified if there are a sufficient and significant number of concrete examples that fit the context. Also, it may be possible to distinguish an example as an aberration, or as the position of one particular person (ie, Pat Robertson) but which it cannot be shown that the Christian worldview really permits.

"If you want concrete examples of what people literally believed in medieval times, visit some Catholic churches in Europe."

Its your thread, your challenge, your premise: Yours to defend.

"That's because you have misrepresented me, just as you misrepresent people like Dawkins."

I certainly do not mispresent Dawkins. Just because you say I do does not mean I do. You've said this on occasion, but I notice you haven't made any effort to actually demonstrate it. And that's the problem with your arguments, Copernicus.

"I have never argued that a 'religious explanation' is "any explanation given by a religious person.""

Of course not.

"It is an explanation that is based on religious belief."

And what is a religious belief?

Geez, Cop. Great, so you've really clarified it now: A religious explanation is an explanation based on a religious belief. Right. Got it.

"For example, the argument that God created the species and that they could not have arisen naturally is a 'religious argument'."

Well, that's hard to say. It need not be exlusively a religious argument, however. I do not need my religion to think that the notion that the species have arisen naturally is asinine and as far away from the evidence as you can get. Now, you think it is a religious POV. It's not. I don't need God to hold evolution in contempt.

Now, if I reject evolution even on naturalistic grounds, you tell ME how it is religious.

"it is not just the religious faith of the arguer that makes it a religious agument."

It seems to me to be pretty self-evident that before one invests even a single sentence in any argument based on an attack on 'religious arguments,' you'd spend a half moment to define what you mean.

Quote:
"Explaining it with clear, easily verifiable evidence is. And that is precisely what scientists have done."

"Here's where you have to eat your own crow. The scientific theories of Newton, Pascal, and Pasteur were not inspired by religion. They just happened to be religious people who made those arguments."

Right. And the reason WHY you exempt them is because you happen to agree with these particular arguments. There is no difference. Your definitions are arbitrary and capricious.

"And what was that? Show us that you understand history"

lol, whatever: "They rested on two philosophical points that derived from the Christian worldview: 1. The universe was NOT God. 2. The universe had an order that could be counted on so that it could be studied."

"OK, that's your opinion. A conclusion that you've come to. Do you have any argument to back it up? We've only seen the Roman Catholic Church apologize for what they did to Galileo in recent memory. It took just a few hundred years for them to admit that they were wrong."

That wasn't a God in the Gaps situation. Exactly why I wanted you to give concrete examples. This concrete example does not support your premise.

"Possibly, you were just ignorant of it then."

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

"Answer a very simple question: Is there any time in Christian history where Christians (orthodox would be nice, but I don't think it matters) believed that rain was God's sperm? That thunder was Jesus bowling?"

"Of course not. I have never claimed that Christians have endorsed every crackpot idea ever invented, and it is a complete strawman caricature of my position to imply that I have."

Yea, it wasn't a caricature at all. It was a QUESTION. And you're right- Christians have never believed that rain was God's sperm (aka, as in Baal), or that thunder was God bowling (pick your mythology). THOSE are 'God of the gaps' arguments.

Advocating the heliocentric model over the geocentric model is not countering a 'God of the gaps' mentality. There was no gap. It was a different interpretation of the data, and the geocentrism supporters were allowing their presuppositions to drive their support, rather than the data- and by that I mean even the Scriptural data. But Christians or 'religious' people (whatever the hey that means) are not the only ones who have allowed their presuppositions to drive their support for a theory over against a theory with better support.

The only difference is that in the case of religious folk you wish to use that against them to castigate them, while in the other cases its just the 'normal scientific method' and 'the strength of the scientific process.'

Of course, you didn't say that either. I can read your mind.

Elisha · « **Reply #9 on:** February 22, 2006, 03:30:06 PM »

Copernicus,

Just like the other thread claiming an argument for atheism, this isn't much better... Where's an actual argument? For example, a logical argument from suffering (which only argues against the existence of a good God), an argument that God cannot be comprehended, or an argument that the very concept of God is illogical. This is no better than the "there is no proof for God; therefore, God does not exist".

Quote

gods are only useful as explanations when we don't have a better natural explanation. Over the centuries, the trend has been for us to appeal less and less to supernatural explanations. A reasonable extrapolation of this trend is that no supernatural explanation is reasonable[/b].

Even if I grant that natural explanations have more explanatory power than a God explanation, how does this further the central atheist claim that God does not exist or is unlikely to exist? At best, if granted, all you have is that the God concept has less explanatory power than a natural concept. Where is non-existence put in?

-Elisha

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2006, 05:07:13 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

You are trying to make a general argument, which is only justified if there are a sufficient and significant number of concrete examples that fit the context. Also, it may be possible to distinguish an example as an aberration, or as the position of one particular person (ie, Pat Robertson) but which it cannot be shown that the Christian worldview really permits.

Sntjohnny, can I ask you to clarify what you are looking for here? If there were a single Christian worldview, then there would only be one church. In fact, there are lots of competing views, Pat Roberts' and yours being only two of them. I'm not limiting this discussion to just one version of a religion. It applies to all, including the many competing Christian versions. I'm not quite sure what you think would be sufficient evidence to support the position. No, strike that. I'm quite sure that no amount of evidence would suffice in your case.

I'll try to address your specific arguments rather than accepting your invitation to chase after that wild goose.

Quote

"If you want concrete examples of what people literally believed in medieval times, visit some Catholic churches in Europe."

Its your thread, your challenge, your premise: Yours to defend.

Actually, I'll just note that you refuse to accept that argument and move on. I don't think that most other people have trouble accepting the point, nor would you either, had the point been advanced by someone else.

Quote

"I have never argued that a 'religious explanation' is "any explanation given by a religious person.""

Of course not.

I'm glad you acknowledge that, since it directly contradicts your earlier attempt to caricature my position.

Quote

"It is an explanation that is based on religious belief."

And what is a religious belief?

A better question would be what distinguishes it from a supertitious belief. Religion is not just belief in supernatural explanations, but the conventionalized dogma that supernatural causes affect human destiny.

Quote

Geez, Cop. Great, so you've really clarified it now: A religious explanation is an explanation based on a religious belief. Right. Got it.

Glad to hear it. That wasn't so painful, wasn't it?

It is not an argument that happens to be made by someone with religious beliefs. Hence, the scientific and philosophical claims made by fervent Christians such as Newton and Pascal were not religious claims. On the other hand, Paley's watchmaker claim, which is based on belief in a supernatural "designer", was a religious explanation.

Quote

"For example, the argument that God created the species and that they could not have arisen naturally is a 'religious argument'."

Well, that's hard to say. It need not be exlusively a religious argument, however. I do not need my religion to think that the notion that the species have arisen naturally is asinine and as far away from the evidence as you can get. Now, you think it is a religious POV. It's not. I don't need God to hold evolution in contempt.

No, it is not hard to say. Let me repeat it a little louder so that you hear it this time: The argument that GOD created the species and that they COULD NOT HAVE ARISEN NATURALLY is a 'religious argument'. There now. Pay attention to the capitalized, underlined word GOD in the sentence. That's about the best I can do on this one. You may feel that you have a nonreligious argument that justifies contempt for evolution, and we have discussed it elsewhere. This here is just an example of a religious argument, not your particular take on the subject.

Quote

Now, if I reject evolution even on naturalistic grounds, you tell ME how it is religious.

Nope. That's a direct contradiction of the wording that I cited. It's not just about you, sntjohnny. Sorry.

Quote

"Explaining it with clear, easily verifiable evidence is. And that is precisely what scientists have done."

"Here's where you have to eat your own crow. The scientific theories of Newton, Pascal, and Pasteur were not inspired by religion. They just happened to be religious people who made those arguments."

Right. And the reason WHY you exempt them is because you happen to agree with these particular arguments. There is no difference. Your definitions are arbitrary and capricious.

No. I exempted their claims because they did not depend on the supernatural to have merit. They were non-religious arguments. Once again, you seem to have trouble in focusing on the difference between a religious argument and an argument that happens to be made by someone who is religious.

Quote

"And what was that? Show us that you understand history"

lol, whatever: "They rested on two philosophical points that derived from the Christian worldview: 1. The universe was NOT God. 2. The universe had an order that could be counted on so that it could be studied."

Forgive my confusion, but did not Aristotle and Plato die before the Christian era began? How could their argument derive from any Christian view at all? This does not bode well for your claim to understand history.

Moreover, it isn't obvious that either premise is compatible with what most Christians believed in early times or even now. Nor is the slightest bit incompatible with atheism. So I think that you simply fail to make your case here.

Quote

"OK, that's your opinion. A conclusion that you've come to. Do you have any argument to back it up? We've only seen the Roman Catholic Church apologize for what they did to Galileo in recent memory. It took just a few hundred years for them to admit that they were wrong."

That wasn't a God in the Gaps situation. Exactly why I wanted you to give concrete examples. This concrete example does not support your premise.

Galileo was told to recant his scientific support for Copernicus' theory because the papacy felt it conflicted with scripture. After all, would God have created a universe that did not have humans at its center? Ptolemaic astronomy was compatible with that thinking. The modern papacy has officially admitted that Galileo's position did not conflict with church doctrine. That's classic GofG, my friend.

Quote

"Answer a very simple question: Is there any time in Christian history where Christians (orthodox would be nice, but I don't think it matters) believed that rain was God's sperm? That thunder was Jesus bowling?"

"Of course not. I have never claimed that Christians have endorsed every crackpot idea ever invented, and it is a complete strawman caricature of my position to imply that I have."

Yea, it wasn't a caricature at all. It was a QUESTION. And you're right- Christians have never believed that rain was God's sperm (aka, as in Baal), or that thunder was God bowling (pick your mythology). THOSE are 'God of the gaps' arguments.

I'm glad that you admit to the reality of my God of Gaps point, even if you feel that Christianity has been an exception to the rule. You said that I could pick my mythology, and I'll oblige. I pick Christianity. The argument that the earth was the center of the universe, that it was once completely inundated by a flood, that hell existed below the ground, that heaven existed in the sky, or that different biological species were created all at once by God are beliefs that Christians have abandoned only after long exposure to better natural explanations.

Quote

Advocating the heliocentric model over the geocentric model is not countering a 'God of the gaps' mentality. There was no gap. It was a different interpretation of the data, and the geocentrism supporters were allowing their presuppositions to drive their support, rather than the data- and by that I mean even the Scriptural data. But Christians or 'religious' people (whatever the hey that means) are not the only ones who have allowed their presuppositions to drive their support for a theory over against a theory with better support.

The earlier models were seen as compatible with religious doctrine and supported on the basis of religious faith, just as similar phony beliefs were supported by other mythologies. You simply refuse to acknowledge the similarity. You feel a need to whitewash the behavior of Christians so that you can maintain your contempt for pagans without tarring your own religion with the same brush. In your mind, "God of Gaps" seems a valid argument against all but the Christian tradition.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2006, 09:11:12 PM »

"Sntjohnny, can I ask you to clarify what you are looking for here?"

Sure. I want you to take the whole picture instead of picking on 'weak links.' Its not noble to go after the small scrawny guy in the line.
Despite the obvious fact that there are as many differences of opinions in Christianity as there are among atheists, there still are some central areas of agreement. I submit to you, once again, the three ecumenical creeds as one example.

"Actually, I'll just note that you refuse to accept that argument and move on."

Sure. I'll just note that you didn't give me an argument, but provided me an unsubstantiated assertion and invited me to substantiate it for you.

"I don't think that most other people have trouble accepting the point, nor would you either, had the point been advanced by someone else."

Perhaps. I was only being consistent in my desire for you to put forward concrete examples so we can see if your generalizations are really valid. You seem to be unwilling to do that.

""I have never argued that a 'religious explanation' is "any explanation given by a religious person."""

""Of course not. ""

"I'm glad you acknowledge that, since it directly contradicts your earlier attempt to caricature my position."

Now, don't get ahead of yourself. I know that you didn't argue it, but you definately mean it. I think your later comments confirm that my 'caricature' is a reality.

"A better question would be what distinguishes it from a supertitious belief. Religion is not just belief in supernatural explanations, but the conventionalized dogma that supernatural causes affect human destiny."

Great, let's just add a bunch more terms requiring definition.

""Geez, Cop. Great, so you've really clarified it now: A religious explanation is an explanation based on a religious belief. Right. Got it.""

"Glad to hear it. That wasn't so painful, wasn't it?"

I guess you misssed the sarcasm. When I was growing up, you were told not to use the word you were defining in the definition itself. That's called a tautology.

"No, it is not hard to say. Let me repeat it a little louder so that you hear it this time:"

Yea, I saw it. However, you haven't done anything to clarify what specifically a religious argument is. You seem to think merely invoking a God is religious. Sorry. Don't you remember telling me that communist atheists were religious, too? I don't trust you to use words appropriately, period. Now, give me a definition of religion that doesn't use the word religion in its definition.

"No. I exempted their claims because they did not depend on the supernatural to have merit."

So how is it that the dialectical materialists were categorized by you as being 'religious'? Did they depend on the supernatural, too?

"Forgive my confusion, but did not Aristotle and Plato die before the Christian era began? How could their argument derive from any Christian view at all?"

I didn't say anything of the sort. The exact wording was:

"You can trace it all the way back to Aristotle and Plato: there is a reason why the Christian community had such an affinity for these philosophers."

The 'it' was a certain way of looking at the world. I wasn't saying that they got it from the Christians. Silly.

"Galileo was told to recant his scientific support for Copernicus' theory because the papacy felt it conflicted with scripture."

That is NOT a God of the Gaps example, I'm sorry. A God of the Gaps explanation means plugging in a divine explanation for physical phenomena. There was no such plug in this instance.

"I'm glad that you admit to the reality of my God of Gaps point, even if you feel that Christianity has been an exception to the rule."

I feel that the overall reality is that Christianity has engaged in GoG, but because of the nature of its philosophical underpinnings, that wasn't the rule.

"The argument that the earth was the center of the universe,"

But it is. Didn't Einstein teach you anything? From one POV, it is. But that is still not a GoG. The placement of a thing is not a gap. Its just a different idea of placing things.

"that it was once completely inundated by a flood,"

Floods are supernatural, are they? I'll alert the press.

"that hell existed below the ground,"

Oh, where does science tell us hell really exists?

"that heaven existed in the sky,"

Same as above.

"or that different biological species were created all at once by God"

Maybe.

"are beliefs that Christians have abandoned only after long exposure to better natural explanations."

But those natural explanations are actually religious explanations. And that's where your flaw currently lies.

"You feel a need to whitewash the behavior of Christians"

Not at all. I'm pretty darn aware of such things without you pointing it out. However, I understand too that you can demonstrate anything by picking and choosing this person or that out of history to make your case. Similarly, going after one particular era over against others is the same.

Copernicus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2006, 11:14:59 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Sntjohnny, can I ask you to clarify what you are looking for here?"

Sure. I want you to take the whole picture instead of picking on 'weak links.' Its not noble to go after the small scrawny guy in the line.
Despite the obvious fact that there are as many differences of opinions in Christianity as there are among atheists, there still are some central areas of agreement. I submit to you, once again, the three ecumenical creeds as one example.

Thanks for clarifying. Size doesn't matter in this argument, sntjohnny. I am just more ecumenical than thou on this issue.

My general point is about the track record of god-explanations in general, not just the ones that you want to narrow the conversation to. Your opinions that Pat Robertson et al. are "weak links" or that some Christian sects count more than others are not ones that I share with you, either.

Quote

""Geez, Cop. Great, so you've really clarified it now: A religious explanation is an explanation based on a religious belief. Right. Got it.""
"Glad to hear it. That wasn't so painful, wasn't it?"

I guess you misssed the sarcasm. When I was growing up, you were told not to use the word you were defining in the definition itself. That's called a tautology.

Nonsense. Counterexample: A happy person is a person who has no worries. You were the one who defined a religious belief in terms of the religion of the person holding the belief. I merely pointed out where you were wrong.

Quote

...you haven't done anything to clarify what specifically a religious argument is. You seem to think merely invoking a God is religious. Sorry. Don't you remember telling me that communist atheists were religious, too? I don't trust you to use words appropriately, period. Now, give me a definition of religion that doesn't use the word religion in its definition.

I have not given you a definition of religion that uses the word 'religion'. I have given you a definition of 'religious explanation' that uses the word 'religion', and I did so in order to explain why your concept of religious explanation was flawed. If we have a disagreement over how to define religion, please tell me what you think it is. Otherwise, I'll just refer you to the dictionary for a definition of its various word senses. For the purposes of this discussion, we can limit the sense to theistic religions, although there are also a few nontheistic religions that would qualify. As for Communism, you probably mean that in the sense where "religion" is taken as a kind of synonym for any dogma. However, as one who has had firsthand knowledge of Communist regimes, I would probably go further than you in endorsing the view that Communism (as practiced by most adherents) is a substitute for religion.

Quote

"No. I exempted their claims because they did not depend on the supernatural to have merit."

So how is it that the dialectical materialists were categorized by you as being 'religious'? Did they depend on the supernatural, too?

They have been 'religious' in the sense that they promote dogmatic faith in the authority of the Communist Party, and they have a totalitarian view of life. Religion itself is inherently totalitarian. That is, religion, like totalitarian political dogmas, attempts to govern every aspect of one's life.

Quote

"Forgive my confusion, but did not Aristotle and Plato die before the Christian era began? How could their argument derive from any Christian view at all?"

I didn't say anything of the sort. The exact wording was:

"You can trace it all the way back to Aristotle and Plato: there is a reason why the Christian community had such an affinity for these philosophers."

That was an earlier statement by you, not the one that I was directly responding to. Your later language implied that you were taking those two pagan philosophers to be advocating a philosophy that "derived from" Christianity. In fact, christendom only came to learn of Aristotle through translation from Arabic, since Christian scribes neglected to maintain the earlier works by pagan Greek philosophers. A later Christian church then came to rationalize Aristotle and Plato as palatable to Christians after the Arabs began to reintroduce civilization back into Europe. I thought you said you understood history, but you haven't shown much evidence of that in this argument thread. Aristotle and Plato were later additions to the christian worldview.

Quote

"Galileo was told to recant his scientific support for Copernicus' theory because the papacy felt it conflicted with scripture."

That is NOT a God of the Gaps example, I'm sorry. A God of the Gaps explanation means plugging in a divine explanation for physical phenomena. There was no such plug in this instance.

The words "conlicted with scripture" make it a God of Gaps explanation. God made the earth the center of the universe, so no scientific theory could be used to contradict the religious explanation for the nature of things. Ptolemaic theory was seen to conform with scriptural expectations, and why wouldn't it? That was the prevailing view of the universe in that part of the world from the viewpoint of many regional religions, not just Judaism or Christianity. Don't try to weasel out of it, sntjohnny. This one clearly qualifies as a religion-inspired heap of rubbish.

Quote

"I'm glad that you admit to the reality of my God of Gaps point, even if you feel that Christianity has been an exception to the rule."

I feel that the overall reality is that Christianity has engaged in GoG, but because of the nature of its philosophical underpinnings, that wasn't the rule.

I haven't been arguing about what "the rule" was. I've just been saying that religious explanations in general have retreated in the face of scientific explanations, and Christians continue to defend the belief that God explains gaps in our ignorance. I'm glad to see that you at least admit that Christians engage in GoG reasoning. That partially, if not fully, concedes my point.

Quote

"The argument that the earth was the center of the universe,"

But it is. Didn't Einstein teach you anything? From one POV, it is. But that is still not a GoG. The placement of a thing is not a gap. Its just a different idea of placing things.

Einstein is irrelevant to the position of Christian dogma on the incorrectness of Copernican astronomy. Once again you get the historical sequence backwards, because you see everything through the prism of your religious doctrine.

Quote

"that it was once completely inundated by a flood,"

Floods are supernatural, are they? I'll alert the press.

The one that you believe in had a supernatural cause, did it not? Can you think of any natural phenomenon that could have inundated the entire world just a few thousand years ago?

Quote

"that hell existed below the ground,"

Oh, where does science tell us hell really exists?

It tells us where hell doesn't exist--beneath the ground. Another religious claim that was taken seriously before science advanced our understanding of reality.

Quote

"that heaven existed in the sky,"

Same as above.

Ditto.

Quote

"or that different biological species were created all at once by God"

Maybe.

OK, not everyone is willing to give up myths to the steamroller of science. But creationism is now a minority position among Christians, whether you like it or not.

Quote

"are beliefs that Christians have abandoned only after long exposure to better natural explanations."

But those natural explanations are actually religious explanations. And that's where your flaw currently lies.

After the fact, sntjohnny. Always after scientists push back the myths that religion offered.

Author Topic: Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations (Read 1459 times)

Copernicus

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Anthony Horvath

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Stathei

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Copernicus

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Anthony Horvath

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Copernicus

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Anthony Horvath

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Copernicus

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Anthony Horvath

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Elisha

Re: Copernicus

Copernicus

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Anthony Horvath

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations

Copernicus

Arg 2 for atheism: Gods as Bad Explanations