Atheists & Skeptics Use God Of The Gaps Reasoning, Too!
Posted in Atheism, Logic, Skepticism, Thinking Critically on | 3 minutes | 9 Comments →
This is something that's been rattling around inside my head for some time now, and I won't be surprised if people disagree. I've written on it before, and I've never been able to come up with a fancy name for a skeptic's argument from ignorance.
We have to admit, when skeptics accuse believers of claiming that a gap in scientific knowledge constitutes evidence for God (for example in the transition from non-life to life), it's called a God Of The Gaps (GOTG) argument. It is essentially an argument from ignorance, in particular, an argument that a set of claims is true because their competing set of claims lacks a particular element needed to justify their conclusion and is hence assumed false.
Take Intelligent Design for example. The believer argues that God -> True because science cannot fully explain a particular phenomenon, that the purely natural explanation of life is unlikely or false only because it has not been proven wholly true and gaps in knowledge remain.
But interestingly, a classic skeptic's response to many scriptures is that they don't make sense, or that they don't understand them, or that they're just nomadic ramblings of goat-herders, or that they consist of irrelevant data, or that they are meaningless metaphors, etc. These ideas serve as bits of evidence that can persuade skeptics of the superiority of their position, but the problem is, any or all of these allegedly senseless scriptures may very well make sense and it may be a gap in our religious understanding that causes the logical disconnect. As with science, our understanding of world scriptures and their claims is also evolving as new evidence emerges and demonstrably false ideas are excluded. Such is characteristic of the winnowing of truth in any field of knowledge.
That a gap in our understanding of scientific knowledge cannot be counted as evidence for God -> True equally entails that a gap in our understanding of religious knowledge cannot be counted as evidence for God -> False. If I am to be fair, I must say that skeptics who discredit the Bible when unable to rationally parse any or all of its particular claims essentially commit the same logical error as the believers who discredit science when unable to rationally parse any or all of its particular claims.
And most importantly, should you agree with the reasoning, what witty little name would you suggest for the skeptic's argument from ignorance?
Lifeguard
says...Howdy, Cl.
I can’t imagine how anyone would claim, based on contradictory scriptural passages, the god simply doesn’t exist. Methinks it’s more likely that skeptics use this argument to undermine the credibility of scripture. There are a few reasons would do this: (1) to demonstrate that scripture is not divinely inspired, (2) to suggest that one set of scripture– the Bible, in this case– is no better or no more infallible or perfect than say the Koran. In other words, it’s more about chipping away at belief than taking those inconsistencies as actually proving god does not exist. At most, it’s an attack on that particular manifestation of theism known as the Judeo-Christian tradition as opposed to a demonstration that god or gods don’t exist.
That being said, I think there can be an attempt to overreach when pointing out inconsistencies in scripture as well as some intentional neglect of interpretations that can give meaning to two contradictory verses of scripture. There’s nothing inherently wrong with resolving contradictions in a text– we do it all the time in our judicial system. The problem is that many skeptics feel these attempts at resolution are little more than new instances of “god of the gaps” reasoning all over again– the believer resolves the ambiguity by filling in the gap with an interpretation that justifies further belief.
Let me be clear that I think that’s perfectly fair. It’s what we call “interpretation,” right?
All things considered, I think this is just another instance of a dog chasing it’s own tail in these kinds of arguments. If you’re an atheist, then the text is contradictory bunk. If you believe, then it’s because you see a way to resolve the contradiction. Niether argument is particularly convincing to anyone other than the respective choir.
Personally, I find atheism the more sensible choice, but I’ll grant believers the right to interpret their own sacred text (within reasonable parameters).
Lifeguard
says...One more thing… when I say “that’s perfectly fair,” I mean that it is fair for Christians and Jews to interpret their scriptures in a way that maintains a form of consistency.
cl
says...Howdy back..
I’ve heard more than a couple people say exactly what was posited. For example, the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie, and some people feel a bona fide contradiction constitutes a lie. But I agree that I should have specified that in these cases, contradictory passages only challenge one particular concept of God. I also agree that a number of skeptics draw the latter conclusion as well. And in the latter cases, I agree:
In all fairness, the theists who use GOTG reasoning equally fall into two categories: the former or absolutist category, and the latter or cumulative category. Some theists, particularly many ID’rs, feel the gaps in science’s knowledge disprove the existence of naturalism in full. Other people simply look at the gaps in science’s knowledge as chipping away at faith in naturalism, a cumulative piece of evidence in a much larger case.
And when I said that many atheists & skeptics look at scriptural inconsistencies that God doesn’t exist, I agree, the argument needed clearer scope: I should have specified that scriptural contradictions would only challenge one particular concept of God.
I happen to agree with you 100% here and knowing that you have a legal background, if you ever have a second or get bored I would be interested in hearing your take on this, specifically, if you think the contradictory witness accounts are resolvable. But when you say,
Although this is generally true, I’ve both persuaded and been persuaded by skeptics in the matter of contradictions. Anyways, hat tip to you, as usual.
Lifeguard
says...Cl,
I checked out that link and I’d agree that contradictions can be resolvable and don’t, by necessity, involve errors. Contradictions should, however, raise suspicion that an error has occurred and provoke some heightened scrutiny. The fact that someone has found “a” way to resolve a contradiction does not necessarily mean they’ve resolved it correctly.
There’s also a big difference when you’re talking about a scriptural passage that describes the thoughts, actions, or intentions of an invisible god who doesn’t act in a way that is as easily and accurately recorded or interpretted as the actions of a human being. Especially given some of the psychological research out there on the reliability of eye witness accounts in the first place.
But we’re getting way off topic here.
Apologies.
MS Quixote
says...cl,
I’ve always called it the “nothing of the gaps” argument :)
BTW–on your other thread, I think the code was embedded in DD’s analogy: “You’d never say that, of course, because you agree with me.” People who will admit when they’re wrong are virtually non-existent, OK maybe extremely rare, in the popular realm. Your professional philosophers will, sometimes, which is odd because they have so much more to lose. Nevertheless, someone who will admit when they’re wrong is a preferrable debating partner to a computer, unless you’re playing chess.
cl
says...MS Quixote,
I also thought of “nothing of the gaps,” but it just lacks that punch that God of the Gaps has, you know? Maybe if we put our heads together we can think of a punchy name. Keep me posted, I’ll do the same.
My experience with people must be different than yours. I inherited / learned much of my debate style from my dad, and I could get him to admit when he was wrong, as he could with me. I admit I’m wrong anytime I can clearly see that I am wrong, but by no means does that occur all the time.
And I agree that someone who will admit they are wrong is a preferable debating partner than a computer. And I still think that a computer is a preferable debating partner to someone who will not or can not admit when they are wrong.
BTW, feel free to come by anytime to chat me up. I always enjoyed reading your comments at DA, but I’m not spending near as much time over there lately. I assume you know why! :)
Juan Felipe
says...Hi Cl,
These ideas serve as bits of evidence that can persuade skeptics of the superiority of their position, but the problem is, any or all of these allegedly senseless scriptures may very well make sense and it may be a gap in our religious understanding that causes the logical disconnect.
I agree, off course, its perfectly possible that new findings will make the scriptures more believable. (i.e. I could imagine egyptian records being found that described the ten plagues in all its detail) in but I have to point out that applying this criteria fairly would open the door to all kinds of religious nonsense. After all, isn’t it possible that the Qur’an is actually the word of God, but a gasp in your religious understanding makes you incapable of identifying it as such?
I’m curious, what criteria would you use to determine whether a text is sacred/inerrant/divinely inspired? It seems to me that using this standard would make one unable to pass judgment on the validity of any religion.
And lastly, give it up guys, you will never be able to come up with a punchier line than “God of the Gasp” ;-)
MS Quixote
says...“And lastly, give it up guys, you will never be able to come up with a punchier line than “God of the Gasp” ;-)”
I would have agreed with you a minute ago, Juan, after spending an hour last night trying to think of a better one. But you may have inadvertently turned the tide with that little typo of yours. Gasp of the Gods? Hmmm, not quite there yet, but I’m greatly encouraged :)
cl
says...Juan,
Glad we could find a place to agree. As far as opening the door to all kinds of nonsense, the way I see it, that door’s been open for a long time now. People already see many religious doctrines as whackaloon.
Certainly. Same would apply to any other book. As far as criteria for inspiration of a text, that’s a longer discussion, but some basic ideas along those lines are discussed here.
And you might be right – it’s gonna be a tough one finding a more clever name!
MS Quixote,
That’s what I thought too. It has a catchy ring, though. I think we can get something eventually.