God of the gaps?

[finder]

In many debates a regular theme that arises is what opponents of the possibility of God's existence commonly call "the god of the gaps" theory. This "theory" is basically a criticism on theists views in which they are depicted as appeals to ignorance. Thus the theistic's views are seen as unsubstantial. We theists often have problems countering this especially in light of historical accounts where natural phenomenon has been mistakenly identified as "God."

Well I contend that mistaken identities of the past does not put onus on the theists to defend against our beliefs being characterized as a "God of the gaps" belief. Nor does the fact that we simply do not know just how advanced or more grand God's sentient attributes are compared to ours. In fact, I think the accusation "God of the gaps" in reality come from a place of ignorance on the atheist's side. Having not known God intimately they are reduced to injecting humanist explanations as their only options to rationalize what we as theists know. For the believer, having been delivered with the assurance of God's existence allows us the clarity to understand that the mistaken identities of the past are a result of the of man's inherent knowledge of God and his failed attempts at reaching out to him on our own merits. Our transgressions created this situation where we must trust him before we can know him for we in our fallen nature distrust from our hearts. So in turn it can lead us down many false paths. But if we seek God earnestly, trusting he will reward the honest humbleness of such a search, with confirmation, then we are able to experience the truth of our loving God. That is how we come to know God. In the end truth doesn't have to be able to be explained in human terms to stand as truth. That fact I realize causes some to think we still shouldn't believe without verification. I would say to them maybe it would be worth examining all the methods available to us to verify. Perhaps God's word puts it best...

I Corinthians 2:10-16

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

[barts]

Well I contend that mistaken identities of the past does not put onus on the theists to defend against our beliefs being characterized as a "God of the gaps" belief. Nor does the fact that we simply do not know just how advanced or more grand God's sentient attributes are compared to ours. In fact, I think the accusation "God of the gaps" in reality come from a place of ignorance on the atheist's side.

It seems to me that atheists fully embrace the notion of not knowing things. Indeed, while I do not (nor can anyone) speak for other atheists, I for one am convinced not only do I know very little about anything, but also I'm not sure what I think I know is even valid. I'm also confident that I cannot possible know more than a miniscule fraction of what there is to be known.

That being said the issue is that theists, it seems to me, generally lurch from one set of absolute beliefs to another. And some work diligently to impose their beliefs on others on pain, at times, even of death. If, as you do, theists simply admitted they really don't know much about their gods and what they want or intend (assuming they want or intend anything) there would be little to quibble about.

The problem is, of course, that theists tend to need absolute belief in gods or what's the point of believing in them.

[el ايمان]

the accusation "God of the gaps" in reality come from a place of ignorance on the atheist's side. Having not known God intimately they are reduced to injecting humanist explanations as their only options to rationalize what we as theists know.

It is more practical to think in human terms than in terms of a supernatural nonhuman entity which we cannot prove to exist and which we can only vaguely describe from the accounts of humans who no longer live.

[Jack]

I think the accusation "God of the gaps" in reality come from a place of ignorance on the atheist's side. Having not known God intimately...

"God of the gaps" refers to the theistic tendency to plug "god" or "god did it" into all the gaps in our knowledge. We don't know how the universe began, therefore god. We don't know how life began, therefore god. The number of gaps used to be larger, science has closed many of them with natural explanations for the movement of continents, climatic causes of floods and tsunamis, lightning, electricity, the atomic structure of matter, on and on. The number of gaps into which "god" can be inserted as a non-explanation is growing smaller as science advances. We now understand more about what causes illness and it turns out it isn't demons or evil spirits.

Many of us atheists were once theists. We likely knew god as intimately as any professing theist. That has nothing to do with the theist's penchant for plugging the notion of god into any gap that science acknowledges exists.

[LetThereBe]

It seems to me that atheists fully embrace the notion of not knowing things.

Ha, well I'm aware of one that doesn't seem to.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins loudly attacks the "God of the Gaps" mentality, yet he himself embraces it, substituting the anthropic principle and multiverse theory. When something seems too unlikely to happen by known means it is irrational to assume the supernatural, but supposedly it is perfectly rational to explain away the improbability with some hand waving and the idea that with infinite universes some MUST have the conditions for us to observe it.

It is human nature to seek an explanation... and when one is not readily available both theists and atheists may embrace an irrational one until a better one comes along.

[Jack]

It is human nature to seek an explanation... and when one is not readily available both theists and atheists may embrace an irrational one until a better one comes along.

Concepts like the multiverse may be hard to wrap our brains around, after all it requires advanced mathematics to even suggest such a thing might exist, but that doesn't make it irrational. That concept also doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics. The primary difference between the two approaches is that while science is always willing to admit that its conclusions are conditional and subject to change as new data is encountered, the same cannot be said of religious beliefs. Find me a devout theist who says that their belief is the best they can muster at the moment but they're willing to change it when "a better one comes along" and I'll gladly amend my opinion.

[LetThereBe]

Concepts like the multiverse may be hard to wrap our brains around, after all it requires advanced mathematics to even suggest such a thing might exist, but that doesn't make it irrational. That concept also doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics. The primary difference between the two approaches is that while science is always willing to admit that its conclusions are conditional and subject to change as new data is encountered, the same cannot be said of religious beliefs. Find me a devout theist who says that their belief is the best they can muster at the moment but they're willing to change it when "a better one comes along" and I'll gladly amend my opinion.

Suggesting something exists that we do not have evidence for (whether it is a God or it is infinite unobservable universes) is irrational.
I would say depending on multiple universes with different physical constants is as much a violation as a supernatural entity. We don't understand how either would really work.

I don't have an example of a specific theist, but obviously the trend of the religious in general has amended its opinions over time. Almost all religious no longer attribute disease to demons or evil spirits. The vast majority believe in an old Earth. Despite early resistance from the church, the heliocentric model is now universally respected.
There was a time when earthquakes, lightning, and nearly every natural phenomenon was attributed to some deity. This faded as we found natural explanations.
At best the atheists just tend to be a bit more flexible in how quickly they adapt.

[finder]

We likely knew god as intimately as any professing theist.

How does one know God and profess atheism? Knowing of God or being familiar intimately with holy writings isn't the same thing.

[finder]

The problem is, of course, that theists tend to need absolute belief in gods or what's the point of believing in them.

Have you ever explored the possibility that atheism needs absolutes as well? For instance we all absolutely will face death. Atheism seems to absolutely depend that no god exist, doesn't it?

[finder]

It is more practical to think in human terms than in terms of a supernatural nonhuman entity which we cannot prove to exist and which we can only vaguely describe from the accounts of humans who no longer live.

In day to day living you're correct, human practicality ought to rule the day. But eternity is a long time to be wrong about. I understand the need for skepticism. But how practical would it be to be wrong about the one thing that has the potential for eternal ramifications?

[Thanatos]

In day to day living you're correct, human practicality ought to rule the day. But eternity is a long time to be wrong about. I understand the need for skepticism. But how practical would it be to be wrong about the one thing that has the potential for eternal ramifications?

Pascal's Wager ignores the fact that Chinese hell and Eskimo hell are even worse.

I might be wrong about those too. Embrace the unknown. It doesn't work to be afraid of what might be there when you truly have no information.

[finder]

That has nothing to do with the theist's penchant for plugging the notion of god into any gap that science acknowledges exists.

You're right. Theists ought not to do that. Especially since we believe all things exist because of him (God), not just the things we do not understand. That is why I said, "Nor does the fact that we simply do not know just how advanced or more grand God's sentient attributes are compared to ours." I think that when theists tend to do that they're inadvertently conceding that things we do have some understanding of, give credence to the thought that God isn't necessary at that point. Which couldn't be further from the truth in my most humble opinion.