"The God of the Gaps" -- Albert Cipriani vs. RGD

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a short formal debate between Albert Cipriani and RGD. They will debate the following resolution:

Resolved: it is rational to propose a divine explanation for any phenomenon that's without a current naturalistic explanation.

Albert Cipriani will argue for the affirmative position and RGD will oppose. The debate will have three rounds and Albert Cipriani will go first according to the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2439047&postcount=9).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2447398#post2447398) is set up in the Existence of God(s) forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[Albert Cipriani]

Introduction:
Theists in the Docket, Hypocrites in the Jury Box
The accusation that one’s argument is nothing more than an appeal to “the God of the Gaps� has the momentum-stopping inertia of a brick wall that’s designed to leave theists cowering and peeing in our pants. The charge that we’ve blundered into a God-of-the-Gaps trap seems to indict us with an offense as indefensible as falling for a logical fallacy.

Thus, it seems that defending the God-of-the-Gaps argument is indefensible. Either that, or: “It’s a job for Superman!� But since you guys don’t believe in superheroes, I’ll have to do it myself.

I’ll do it not just for the sake of my formally pee-stained pants, :o but because I genuinely despise rhetoric in drag, masquerading around as if it were a thought when in actuality all it’s doing is impeding thought. Conversely, to the extent the God-of-the-Gaps charge (when stripped of its frilly rhetorical underwear) bares some resemblance to a valid thought and has the capacity to be considered a rational indictment of an invalid theistic mindset, I reject it on the grounds of said accusation being a naked species of arbitrary and capricious prosecution .

Just as any jury would reject the accusations of a Caucasian cop who pulled over only Mexicans, you guys should reject the God-of-the-Gaps accusation as a species of prejudice without evidentiary value since the charge is discriminatorily and exclusively leveled against theists alone. To indict theists for appealing to the God entity beyond our empirical reach is to indict yourselves as hypocrites for doing the same thing while avoiding use of the “g� word.

For example, you use the “c� and “m� words to appeal to entities every bit as non-empirical, mysterious, eternal, omni-maximal, and un-falsifiable as God: Chance and Motion. Like God, these entities lie beyond our empirical reach and like God are supposedly responsible for everything Chance is your god of the gaps principle for the evolution of life all the way back to abiogenesis. And Motion is your god of the gaps for everything else, also known as the Grand Unified Theory, or theory of everything.

The Indictment as Subterfuge
An appeal to God is inadmissible to atheists because their courtroom has no room for imagination. They court a singular conception of reality under the rubric of “Naturalism.� Even though it’s five syllables long, don’t let that fool you. It means the same thing as the one-syllable version – god. Only their version of god is Nature, hence the term Naturalism. You see how the shell game works? Atheists capitalize on their sleight-of-hand by capitalizing “Nature� while demoting our “God� to a lowercase god. O the hypocrisy of it all! :mad: But I digress.

The point is that if reality is as unimaginative as atheists, if all there is is the pagan god of Nature, the mindless impersonal Nature of brute facts that always were and always will be, that are collectively and unconsciously copulating with Mistress Chance for all eternity, whose X-rated shenanigans we’ve been privy to empirically and voyeuristically watch for while, then any other God, any real uppercase personal God must necessarily be a false god before them and subject to their atheistic cries of: Anathema! O, the irony of it all! :mad: But I digress.

The subterfuge in the God-of-the-Gaps indictment consists in atheists’ not-so-hidden assumption that all effects have empirical causes. If this were true, if reality were circumscribed in so tightly wrapped a gift box then of course we theists would be insane for pointing to a cause outside the box. But this, their Naturalistic philosophy under the guise of a self-evident truth, is but an unproven and improvable assumption. And an assumption is a wet noodle, not a billy club, with which to beat us up. Ergo, it’s a beating I’m sore as hell about and not going to take anymore!

Countersuit
Imagine us theists being in control of the courts, schools, and culture as you guys are and playing your same game. You don’t have to imagine, just read your history, we DID! It’s something you love to hate us for: the persecution of science’s patron saint, Galileo, the witch trials, and in general, the theistic refusal to assume natural causes but rather, to presume that virtually every effect was caused by and subsumed in the will of God. See what happens when there’s not enough imagination to dislodge entrenched assumptions?

So now it’s your unimaginative turn. Naturalism is the reigning presumption of the day. Upon it the “God-of-the-Gaps� indictment seems to rest as securely and authoritatively as the cry of heresy once did. Maybe there’s some poetic justice in the reversal of theistic fortunes, but that doesn’t make it right. Though it does make you hypocrites for condemning us for having done to your forbearers what you’re now doing to us, disallowing our theistic God-of-the-Gaps assumptions while insisting upon your Naturalistic assumptions. – Shame On You, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Albert Cipriani,

I would like to point out that your opening statement has exceeded the 750 word limit, as agreed to per the FDP thread, by about 74 words. We'll let your statement remain as it is, but please try to keep future statements within the limit.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[RGD]

To my esteemed colleague; to the moderators; and to the peanut gallery - Ave, Ave, Ave. Morituri te salutant!

Brevity being, if not the soul of wit, at least a consideration in this debate, I will be brief. I plan to organize my response to Albert as follows: a discussion of terms; a justification for 'Naturalism' as a place-holder for the unknown; and an analysis of Albert's prior post.

Terminology
What would it mean to say that the "God of the Gaps" explanation is reasonable?

What, after all, is it to say that anything is reasonable? Clearly context is important, but in the case under discussion, I suggest that 'reasonable' should be held to mean "derived from sound thinking." In other words, some statement is reasonable iff we can show a valid chain of logic - inductive or deductive - leading up to it from unquestioned premises. We also need to clarify "God of the Gaps" as a term of art. I suggest that 'God of the gaps' should be held to mean that the causal history of a given event - where that causal history is not actually known - involves one or more direct acts of God or one of God's agents.

I would appreciate any commentary Albert may have on either of these definitions.

A Justification for Naturalism
Actually, I think this is quite simple, and breaks down into two parts:

First, all events with an unknown causal history that have been explained, have been explained without recourse to supernatural actions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that events that still have no causal history will be explained without recourse to supernatural actions.

Note that isn't a statement of absolutism: "all swans we've found investigated are white therefore ALL swans are white." It's more a case of "since all the swans examined by tens of thousands of people over the past five hundred years have been white, it's a pretty darn good guess that the next swan we look at is going to be white." A simple case of inductive logic - as practiced both by theists and atheists.

Second, science investigates that which can be investigated - 'naturalism' is a term both confusing and vague. Since the supernatural cannot be investigated (if it could, it wouldn't be supernatural), we will never have any ability to demonstrate divine explication of an event.

Albert's prior post
Stripped of all rhetoric, invectives, indirect insults, and digressions, I think Albert's post may be summarized as follows:
1. It has a catchy title. Kudos.

2. Atheists assert that the GoG argument is a fallacy. Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Albert here. The GoG certainly doesn't seem to be a logical fallacy of the same order as argumentum ad absurdum, for instance.

3. Atheists also make use of the GoG argument - since their 'placeholder', "that there exists a causal history for this event which does not contain any supernatural acts" - is as untestable, unverifiable, and unempirical as 'God'. I think this is disposed of by induction: the track record of material causation is, in essence, perfect - there has NEVER been a case where an event with an unknown causal history was eventually explained by the actions of the divine.

4. That since atheists presuppose Naturalism, God as an explanation is rejected a priori as a causal explanation. This has several flaws - the only one I am going to highlight is that not all atheists are Naturalists.

5. Atheists aren't being fair - when theists ruled the roost, Naturalism was punished. In good conscience, now that atheists are in charge, they shouldn't punish theists for comparable behavior. When theists can provide objective evidence that their position is correct, then we can be fair about it. But personal opinion isn't sufficient. One could argue that Galileo had no better objective evidence than his critics - merely a simpler, better theory. But that, I suggest, would be sufficient as well. The problem is, "God did it", is not and never has been a theory. Merely a suggestion.

One suggestion for a future topic would be to explore what 'supernatural' actually means - is it a null word? Merely a placeholder for that which cannot be investigated, or for something which cannot currently be investigated.

[Albert Cipriani]

A Colonoscopy of Her Terminology
RGD defines what’s reasonable as that which “show[s] a valid chain of logic… leading up to it from unquestioned premises.� Of course, this just begs the question of what are “unquestioned premises.� Such a “definition� would ossify conventional wisdom and squelch genius.

For example, in the days when Social Darwinism was the rage, when the “unquestioned premises� were that man was just another animal struggling for fitness, the notion that men should breed men as man had heretofore bred chickens was logical, and hence, by RGD’s definition, reasonable. So the chicken farmer who rose to the occasion, the man of that hour entering stage left was Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s second in command. That’s where “unquestioned premises� lead.

RGD suggest that the “God of the gaps should be held to mean that the causal history of a given event… involves one or more direct acts of God or one of God's agents.� This seems more descriptive of miracles. The key term is “causal history,� which is a concept that is profoundly limited by our knowledge.

For example, just 100 years ago agnostic Thomas Huxley and other leading lights were sure that the causal history of abiogenesis was nothing more that a simple chemical reaction taking place in mud Here (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm.) Like sodium and chloride reacting with one another to produce salt; mud and lightning bolts supposedly reacted to produce living protoplasm, which was all living things consisted of, no nucleus, no mitochondria, no nuthin’ but plasma. Now we know that the life’s causal history consists of a billion more links from the genome to the insanely complex folding of proteins.

With abiogenesis seeming to present so short a causal history, ignorant early Darwinians like Huxley were confident they themselves were smart enough to supply the link to bridge the inanimate-animate gap, no thanks to God. Now, a century latter and smart enough to detect a million gaps in what had been but one gap, Darwinians should know enough than to stubbornly continue to resist the God-of-the-gaps conclusion. Yet they still resist. The arrogance of their Darwinian dogma abrogates their native intelligence.

In the 500-year-old tradition of William Harvey (who closed the gap between veins and arteries by positing capillaries, and then predicted that all our remaining gaps of human physiology would be filled with knowledge in another generation), you guys are still optimistic. Incredibly, you seem unaware that every gap closed only opens many more and that’s why there are more gaps today than ever before. Yet you are more unwilling than ever before to appeal to a God of the Gaps for closure. But not I, for I am the open-minded one on this issue and you are the close-fisted ideologues.

Naturalism Au Naturel (i.e., Stripped Naked of its Pretensions)
RGD asserts: “It is reasonable to presume that events that still have no causal history will be explained without recourse to supernatural actions.� I’ll do her one better. If by “explained� she means described, not even one event can be explained by supernatural actions.

For starters, actions are, well, actions, and not explanations. So even a bona fide Act of God explains nothing.

But more importantly, Naturalism (which disallows supernaturalism as its first principle) explains nothing. Blinkered by its Naturalistic presumptions, all the sciences do is describe how one action begets another. And yet they have the chutzpah to call that an explanation! But calling a description an explanation does not make it so any more than calling an action a miracle makes it a miracle or calling on God to cork a gap in our knowledge makes Him fulfill that role. Allow me to illustrate.

Thunder used to be Thor bowling. And that really was an explanation. Now science teaches us that thunder is really just an expansion-contraction cycle of air from the sudden heat of a lightening bolt. And that really is no explanation at all because it begs dozens of new questions about electricity, air molecules, and heat.

Even tho thunder wasn’t really Thor bowling, Thor bowling was at least really an explanation. (E.g. He needs recreation as do us.) Now all we’ve got is an infinite regress of descriptions or brute facts both of which are more brutish than Thor ever was, and neither of which are explicable. They are not answers. They just are. That’s the conundrum a God-of-the-Gaps resolves.

As RGD says: “Science investigates that which can be investigated.� And the tool of its trade is “how,� not “why.� So leave the “why� probe to us religious philosophers; for only a personal supernatural reason (read: Personal God) beyond the many irrelevant “hows� of Naturalism can answer the peculiarly personal and uniquely human question of “why.� -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
[solicitation to newsletter removed - NS]

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Albert Cipriani and RGD have agreed to amend the word limit, as agreed per the FDP thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2439047&postcount=9) to 800 words. Due to the delay in Albert's statement being validated (to ensure agreement in adjusting the word limit), RGD will have until July 1 to submit her next statement.

For Albert Cipriani. I've removed your link to your online newsletter. Unless you are citing your online newsletter to support a specific argument in the debate, please do not solicit it.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

RGD,

Please note that the time limit to post your next statement has passed. As the rules permit, however, you'll be granted a 3 day grace period, extending your deadline to July 4.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The grace period to post the next statement has passed and we have not heard from RGD. Unfortunately, I must declare this debate a forfeit. Albert Cipriani will have the opportunity to make a concluding statement if he wishes to.

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Albert Cipriani,

Please note that the time limit to post your final statement has passed. As rules permit, however, you'll be granted a grace period, extending your deadline to July 15.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[Albert Cipriani]

Hypocrisy Exposed
To deny the plausibility of a God-of-the-gaps argument is to assert the universal applicability of the scientific method. If nothing can be done by God, then everything must be done by non-God. And what shall we call this non-God process whereby all things are done? I know, the non-God-of-the-gaps! He-She-It is what keeps photons flying at the speed of light. What a heap of hypocrisy. In short, any attempt to repudiate the God-of-the-gaps hypothesis is but a naked reassertion of the atheistic hypothesis under the fig leaf of science.

You can call the answer behind our questions Mother Nature or you can call it Naturalism or you can call it a brute fact or a universal constant or the late great Grand Unified Theory of everything… just don’t call it God! That seems to be RGD’s disingenuous semantically-slippery position. It’s as extreme as it is exclusive as it is excessive. By comparison, us God-of-the-gap types are paragons of balance. We allow for God processes AND Natural processes. What could be more reasonable? It only seems unreasonable to those who are unreasonably closed-minded to the possibility of God.

Naturalism Negated
If RGD is right, if there IS a naturalistic explanation for every action, then the very idea of God’s existence is nonsensical. For what IS is a function of what happens, not vice versa. That is, what does not act does not exist. If God is denied any role in our universe, then He has no place in our universe and religion must go extinct. Conversely, if God is the theological explanation for every action, then science is nonsensical and we’d be better off praying for good weather instead of wasting time launching weather satellites. If science does not even allow for the possibility of gaps in its naturalistic explanations, then it has hubristically elevated itself to the shameful status of a demigod.

But, of course, RGD is wrong. Naturalism, like Evolution, is an assertion disguised as a theory, that gets passed off as fact that is actually a conundrum. Naturalism-evolution is the double-ouroboros of atheism. That ancient religious icon now serves as a logo for the irreligious. The twin intellectual evils of Naturalism-Evolution incestuously breed modernity’s atheistic mindset that prompts today’s man to his heights of self-indulgent self-destructiveness.

Not only does Naturalism explain nothing, it does a poor job of describing anything, too. For example, Naturalism’s latest brainchild is Quantum Mechanics. And what it babbles is as incomprehensible as any one-year-old. What QM says at the subatomic scale breaks the laws of identity and non-contradiction, logic’s twin pillars. Yet no theory of physics has been more thoroughly substantiated by the experimental evidence. QM is undoubtedly true. Problem is (as physicist Richard Feynman was fond of pointing out), QM is also undoubtedly absurd. It’s an un-explanation.

Fact is, neither a proximate nor remote explanation of anything exists. The Naturalistic undercarriage for the empirical wheels grinding away its scientific approach to the enigma of reality gets us not one inch closer to an explanation. But our brains are hardwired for an explanation. Enter, the God-of-the-gaps explanation. It’s not a naturalistic explanation, but it is an explanation none the less. It is not an empirical approach, but it does terminate in an intellectually satisfying and logically valid conclusion.

Theism Asserted
Science even has a vocabulary for my God-of-the-gaps argument. Physicists call it an “Effective Theory.� Meaning, the effectiveness of any scientific theory, its ability to explicate reality, is scale-dependant. Unlike arrogant atheists, physicists are humble enough to acknowledge that their theories do not apply to all scales.

For example, a theory of gravitation explain all that needs explaining only at the super cluster scale. For at that scale, not even a supernova can be detected. At the galactic scale, a gravitational theory is not enough. The apparent black hole drain our galaxy is swirling around requires an electromagnetic and nuclear theory. But at the atomic scale, the theory of gravity falls out of relevancy. Physicists ignore gravitational effects at that scale because they are negligible. Sort of like how you atheists ignore the universal truths we theists gravitate towards.

You see? :cool: It’s all about context. In the context of this material world of pleasures and pains hedonism (Read: atheism, which is hedonism’s theoretical underpinning as naturalism is science’s cotter-pin keeping its empirical wheels spinning faster and faster and getting nowhere just as quickly!) is operative. Hedonists err, however, in presuming that the scale at which their worthless lives are squandered is the only scale reality has in store for them. They err in extrapolating that their temporal life is life and their temporal death is death and that there is nothing else, no other scale we can exist in in-between, like a blessed eternal life or hellish eternal death. See Ya On the Other Side of Your Grave, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic Living Large in a More Effective Theory than Yours

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The formal debate is now complete. We would like to thank Albert Cipriani and RGD for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the Peanut Gallery.

- NS, FD Moderator