The unexplaned vs the unexplainable

[bernee51]

In this thread the following conversation took place:

Me:
I see no need for proof of abiogeniesis. What has that to do with whether I believe in your god or not?

Oher:
It has to do with whether or not their is a need for God. If life can happen without the supernatural then there's no necessity for the supernatural. As it stands now there's no alternative to a supernatural creation of life.

Me:
Again with the logical fallacy.

Other:
I don't see how that's a logical fallacy. It's like trying to fit a square block through a circle hole. It just doesn't fit. But instead of realizing it and admitting the ball goes through the hole we want the square to go in so bad that we keep trying to fit the square and say "one day we'll make it fit".

Many theistic arguments in defense of the existence of a god involve arguing that certain events that haven't been fully explained by naturalistic science are unexplainable in principle by naturalistic science. Thus, the only "explanation" available is the supernatural, establishing a justification for believing in a god.

Since man first walked on his own two legs, great scientific progress has been made. Explanations have been developed, based upon natural causes, for many events presumed unexplained. How, then, can we know that a presently unexplained phenomenon will not turn out to have some natural explanation?

To claim that there are phenomena which must be considered unexplainable is to predict what the future course of scientific investigation will or will not reveal. And this would be mere guesswork. Or wishful thinkling.

Theists certainly can’t claim to know enough about science and the universe to know that such events are unexplainable — that would involve them knowing far more than the scientists studying the phenomena.

Making a claim foir god on the basis of the seemingly unexplainable is a classic 'god of the gaps' argument.

Is this a valid proof of gods existence or just wishful thinking?

[Lotan]

Is this a valid proof of gods existence or just wishful thinking?

Hi bernee,
I find your question to be quite timely. Our local Christian radio talk show host, Bob Dutko was debating atheist Reginald Finley, the Infidel Guy, on this very subject just yesterday.

Bob's big question was this...

"Do you believe that the complexity and design of the universe developed on its own without any intelligence guiding it?"

Today Bob expressed his view that the burden of proof is on atheists to prove god doesn't exist because complexity and design can't come about by accident.

So, if one thinks that the 'design' (a loaded word, but never mind) of the universe arose by natural means, then one is supposedly expected to explain, in detail, the mechanisms by which it did so, and be able to convince the faithful to boot.
This is a classic argument to ignorance...

"The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator prove that it isn't."

So, wishful thinking it is.

Pictorial demonstrations of logical fallacies may be found here.
(Warning, it's a big file but worth it! )

[jwu]

Is this a valid proof of gods existence or just wishful thinking?

Basically the validity of this proof can be nullified by showing up a single instance where an attempt to prove God this way failed - any instance of a shrinking "God of the gaps" will do so, any past discovery of a mechanism which explains the previously unexplainable.

That line of reasoning will be demonstrated to be unreliable then, and therefore by definition no longer "proof".

[Jose]

As jwu has suggested, an historical analysis will show very easily that "the unexplained" is not evidence for supernatural intervention. If we go back a while--say, 2000 years--there was a lot that was not explained. Much was attributed to one or another god, because there was simply no other kind of explanation imaginable. How do you explain earthquakes or volcanoes without some understanding of geology, and plate tectonics in particular? How do you explain the appearance of children, or the fact that some are boys and some are girls, when you don't know about eggs, sperm, or chromosomes? How do you explain the weird patterns of movement of planets, or the phases of the moon, or the sun rising and setting, or the fact that the sky doesn't fall down? Is the earth flat? Where did birds come from? Why are there the bones of monsters in the ground? Why do people get sick? Why are there times when everyone seems to get boils, or that the whole world seems to be covered in locusts?

Lots of things used to be attributed to god, that we now explain quite simply. Most of these explanations are so commonplace that no one thinks of them as being "anti-god" (like our ability to track swarms of locusts, and even understand the biology that triggers their migration; or our ability to recognize the formation of boils as a reaction to a particular type of bug bite). Nonetheless, the ancient supernatural explanations have given way to natural explanations, even though ancient peoples of 2000 years ago would have considered many of the phenomena to be inherently unexplainable.

We look back on these "quaint" ideas, and say that we just didn't have explanations at the time. These things were merely unexplained, not unexplainable.

It is interesting to ask what criteria we would use to define some problem as being unexplainable. We'd pretty much have to say that, not only is it currently unexplained, but no one will ever be smart enough to explain it. This makes one wonder what would make anyone think that humans today (e.g. George Bush?) are the smartest that will ever be. Why would anyone think that their own kids or grandkids will be so much dumber than anyone alive today that they'd be incapable of coming up with an explanation to a problem that we haven't yet solved? That's terribly pessimistic, and kind of a slap in the face for one's own genes! What could possibly happen to ensure that from now on, people will get dumber? [well...hmmm...dumber might not be necessary; it would work simply to replace science education with fundamentalist dogma--then no scientific questions would be addressed, and things would remain unexplained!]

Personally, I don't buy the idea that people will get dumber from now on, so I think it's likely that people will come up with explanations for things we currently cannot explain.

It seems to me to be fairly silly to use this "unexplainable" idea as "evidence" for god. It makes much more sense to say that science can address only the natural world, and gods are outside of it. Therefore, rather than opposing religion, science complements it.

[juliod]

It makes much more sense to say that science can address only the natural world, and gods are outside of it.

Yes, but then you are back to lying again, at least to yourself.

I object strongly to the statement that science can "only" examine the natural world. It implies that the supernatural world actually exists.

Instead, we should say that everything that is known to exist can be (and is being) studied by science. God is not among them because god is not known to exist.

The god-of-the-gaps argument doesn't help because it is non-evidence of god. I am grateful to jwu for making such a clear, concise statment of it. As long as there is a single example of a gap being filled without god, then this sort of argument is fully refuted.

Also, I feel the need to point out that GotG isn't consistent with any of the significant existing religions. God is never described as skulking in some distant, remote, unknown corner of the universe, but being interested and active in the lives of the faithful. God is supposed to be both Here and Now. There's no point in looking for him is some sort of galactic priest hole.

DanZ

[Grumpy]

juliod

Instead, we should say that everything that is known to exist can be (and is being) studied by science. God is not among them because god is not known to exist.

I prefer the phrase"Nothing we have seen in the universe requires a supernatural explanation." Of course with the scientifically valid corollary "So far".

Grumpy 8)

[McCulloch]

Instead, we should say that everything that is known to exist can be (and is being) studied by science. God is not among them because god is not known to exist.

I prefer the phrase "Nothing we have seen in the universe requires a supernatural explanation." Of course with the scientifically valid corollary "So far".

But the God-of-the-Gaps argument essentially says that some of those things which science has not found an explanation for will require a supernatural explanation. I believe that there is nothing beyond the reach of science. If God can be shown to exist, then God can be studied scientifically. There is no need for a supernatural explanation. If it exists, then it is natural not supernatural.

[juliod]

But the God-of-the-Gaps argument essentially says that some of those things which science has not found an explanation for will require a supernatural explanation.

Well, let's try it out rather than discussing it.


Observation: The sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, and does so every day.

Theory: This can only be explained by god carrying the sun across the sky in his chariot.

Primary refutation: Other explanations are plausibe. To wit: a) The sun is on a crystal sphere surrounding the earth and rotates once a day; b) The sun is the center of the universe and the earth rotates once a day; c) The sun is a star in a galaxy and the earth both rotates and revolves around it.

Conclusive refutation: Comprehensive evidence supports theory c, not the GotG.

This example refutes all GotG arguments because they are based on the same claim that certain explanations are impossible without god. The nature of the "gap" is not relevant. The falsit lies in the claim that no other explanation is possible.

In fact, GotG is falsified not by finding enough evidence to conclude another theory is true, but by merely presenting at least one other plausible thoery.

DanZ

[QED]

Well seeing as how it's been such a trivial task to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument I'm going to act as devils ( or should that be angels ) advocate:

I don't see how that's a logical fallacy. It's like trying to fit a square block through a circle hole. It just doesn't fit. But instead of realizing it and admitting the ball goes through the hole we want the square to go in so bad that we keep trying to fit the square and say "one day we'll make it fit

Ultimately there still remains one big question: How in principle there can be something rather than nothing? I can sort of understand how people might pick God as a default solution to this conundrum -- but only to the extent that God would be a label for this conundrum. For me that's as far as it goes. No other evidence is present to suggest any Godly intervention (after all if there was we wouldn't be having this debate) and despite all the mythology the world appears to be doing exactly what we'd expect a world to do without there being a God to direct the show.

So, for example, when a beautiful flower dies and withers I don't believe that God finally decided to give up on it. Not only does the world look autonomous and self-organizing to me, it seems ridiculous to imagine that there might be some essential force acting upon all the matter in the universe to make it all tick. I think this would have to be the case if the conventional notions about God were true, hence I don't believe that that sort of God exists.

[Jose]

Also, I feel the need to point out that GotG isn't consistent with any of the significant existing religions. God is never described as skulking in some distant, remote, unknown corner of the universe, but being interested and active in the lives of the faithful. God is supposed to be both Here and Now. There's no point in looking for him is some sort of galactic priest hole.

This is the real issue, isn't it? All of the religions that posit the existence of one or more gods emerged in a pre-scientific era. In the absence of any plausible explanation based on natural causes, it was apparently a good idea at the time to propose a supernatural explanation. In no case would such an explanation have been "there's this god, see, but he doesn't let himself be seen or known, and instead, he just lurks behind the normal processes of nature."

It seems to me (without having done even a cursory examination of religious traditions) that the here-and-now, active gods would have left evidence of their actions. This leaves us with only two flavors of gods to consider: the ever-diminishing GotG, and the shy god, who does everything so that it looks entirely natural, so that no one will ever be able to figure out if he exists or not. The shy god isn't a part of any religion, even if it's possible to imagine him. I suppose we could also have the trickster god, who set things up to look entirely natural--not because he's shy and doesn't want to be discovered, but because he's a trickster and delights in fooling people.

How in principle there can be something rather than nothing?

Because that's how nature is.

Here's another conundrum, which may just rephrase what you've said, QED: Why do people seem to have this innate desire to know why things are the way they are? Isn't this at the root of this puzzle? It doesn't seem to be enough to say "the universe exists" ... it's necessary to ask "yes, but why?" This isn't "how" (a question of mechanism) but "why"--a question of the fundamental purpose of a universe, and the purpose of having it be the way it is.

I'm reminded of the classic A Private Universe, which analyzes people's misconceptions about the mechanism of The Seasons. I asked my students once, "Why are there seasons?" expecting to find similar results. I almost did...no more than 25% could explain that seasons result from the tilt of the earth's axis. Over half of them gave the classic misconception, that the earth is closer to the sun in the summer. (One of
'em even said that it's summer when the US is facing the sun, and winter when it's facing away--and he was happy to use the same explanation for day vs night!). The remaining 25% or so didn't care about "how" seasons come about. They tried to describe the purpose of seasons--the real "why" they should exist at all. My favorite was that seasons are a marketing ploy, so that there will be different clothing styles, requiring more purchases.

If the universe exists simply because that's the way of universes, then there's no answer to the question of why it exists at all.