Frank Turek looks at Scientism of the gaps

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 30, 2021

Atheism, Christian Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

You’ve heard atheistic naturalists and Christian Darwinists talk about the “God of the Gaps,” right?

= Every time it seems like something in the universe looks designed — whether it is the laws of mathematics or the complexity of nervous systems — “science” will come along and show that, sure enough, it all just randomly happened that way.

“The universe can and will create itself from nothing,” as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow argued in The Grand Design. (Note that it is called The Grand Design even though it argues the opposite. )

So, in the atheistic naturalist’s and the Christian Darwinists’ view, anyone who doubts that Everything Comes About by Accident from Nothing” is undermining people’s faith.

Presumably, people will find out the truth and then they will no longer believe in the God Who Makes No Difference and they will stop going to … Churches No One Goes To Any More Anyway.

Here, apologist Frank Turek of CrossExamined talks about the point of view they all seem to prefer, “Scientism of the Gaps”:

Christians are sometimes accused of the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy. In contrast, naturalists are occasionally guilty of a ‘Scientism of the gaps’ fallacy. Watch this! pic.twitter.com/W7Wr6fTSLK
— Frank Turek (@DrFrankTurek) May 28, 2021

To summarize Scientism of the Gaps: No mountain too high, no river so wide that sheer chaos cannot contrive to create an inextricably interlinked system that seamlessly navigates it.

Even though chaos never works that way in your own life, you must believe — if you are really science-friendly — that it works that way at the foundation of all of life, the entire universe and all that.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments

BO'H: we KNOW the empirically effective source of FSCO/I. It is not -- repeat, NOT -- a gaps argument to infer from reliable sign to signified cause. The living cell has codes, algorithms, so language, molecular nanotech execution machinery etc, in exceedingly complex form implementing a von Neumann, kinematic self-replicator. The known adequate cause for language applied to codes and algorithms is not in doubt, it is intelligently directed configuration. Whodunit is an onward question but on the first question, that tweredun, the matter is clear. Especially as no one has shown an empirically efficacious cause of codes and algorithms etc apart from language using intelligence. Those who try to substitute inadequate cause for known adequate cause are the real ones trying to advance an unwarranted claim. often, by trying to push ideological censorship on inductive inference, as say Lewontin documented. KFkairosfocus_{June 9, 2021
June
06
Jun
9
09
2021
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Correction. My last response was to 46, not 42.hnorman42_{June 9, 2021
June
06
Jun
9
09
2021
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H @42 This is a fairly popular argument but I've never been able to connect with it. Knowledge is not an entitlement. We gain as much knowledge as we can and I personally am grateful for it. A similar situation exists with regard to the multiverse. I think there are good arguments against it but I've never heard anybody say that it couldn't be true because scientists can't identify the universes in it. Still working on a response to 42. It's very interesting. I've got a lot on my plate though.hnorman42_{June 9, 2021
June
06
Jun
9
09
2021
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Regarding the “unidentified designer”, that is not a postulated option but a refusal to postulate an option because of insufficient knowledge.
What is ID doing to remedy this so that it has sufficient knowledge?Bob O'H_{June 9, 2021
June
06
Jun
9
09
2021
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @42 I may have confused propositional calculus with something to do with sets - or not. I'll think about it in the morning. I think my main point was that all agents of change either possess intelligence or they do not. So to diminish one is to support the other. Contrast this with the problems of learning the identity of a designer. Showing that Susan did not bake a cake does not support the idea that Richard did, because Ann, Mark and Kathy may have done so as well. Regarding the "unidentified designer", that is not a postulated option but a refusal to postulate an option because of insufficient knowledge. Leaving a gap unfilled is not a gap argument. A gap argument is an inappropriate effort to fill a gap when knowledge is inadequate. Your objection about there being multiple blind forces to deal with is proving to have a lot of nuance. I'll comment on it tomorrow.hnorman42_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

of related note:
“A God of the gaps argument is an argument that has a formal logical structure that in logic is known as a ‘argument from ignorance’. It is an informal fallacy. Arguments from ignorance have the following form.,,, 1. Cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X 2. Therefore cause B must have produced effect X ,,, but if I have no independent evidence that cause B can produce effect X, then I have committed a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Because, just because cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X doesn't mean that some other cause did it. You have to have independent evidence that that other cause is capable of doing it (i.e. producing the effect in question). That then becomes a God of the gaps argument when you say various natural processes are not sufficient to produce, say, the origin of the first life or the origin of the first animals in the history of life. If I were then to say, “Therefore God did it”, that would be a God of the gaps argument. It would be an argument from ignorance. But that is not how we are arguing when we make the case for Intelligent Design because we are adding an additional premise. We are saying that.,,, 1. Various natural processes are not sufficient to produce new functional information, (specifically the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule). 2. We do know of a cause that does produce (functional digital) information. (We have independent evidence that intelligent agency, that mind,,, can create (functional digital) information.),,, ,,, so we are not arguing from our ignorance. We are arguing from our knowledge of cause and effect in the world. (Specifically we are arguing from what we know minds can do, i.e. produce information.) - Stephen Meyer Debunks the “God of the Gaps” Objection - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqzCA1mnyM
bornagain77_{June 6, 2021
June
06
Jun
6
06
2021
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

The 'God of the gaps' argument from Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists fails on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin. So let's start with the origin of the argument itself. The origin of the argument goes back to atheist Friedrich Nietzsche and to theistic evolutionist Henry Drummond.
God of the gaps - Origins of the term From the 1880s, Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part Two, "On Priests", said "... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God.".[3] The concept, although not the exact wording, goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th-century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man(1904) . He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science cannot yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."[4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Origins_of_the_term
Nietzsche's claim, "into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God", was a very interesting claim for Nietzsche to make. The reason why it is interesting is that if God is not real, but is merely a delusion as atheists hold, then everything else becomes a delusion for the atheist.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 2021 - Detailed Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be. So, since everything that normal everyday people regard as being real becomes an illusion under Darwinian materialism, the Christian Theist has every right to ask "what exactly is regarded as being undeniably real for the Darwinian materialist and/or naturalist?" Well, for one thing, as one of their main and primary presuppositions, the Darwinian materialist and/or naturalist, as the name 'materialist' implies, holds that material particles are 'real' and that everything else "is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories."
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
And although, as a primary presupposition, the Darwinian atheist holds that material particles are the ultimate reality upon which everything else must be based, and although the Darwinian atheist holds that Christian Theists are being 'unscientific' in their rejection of his supposedly 'scientific' presupposition of reductive materialism, the fact of the matter is that science itself has now falsified the Darwinian materialist's belief that material particles are 'real'. As the following delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms demonstrated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’? The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
As well, Leggett's inequality has now also falsified 'realism', (which is the belief that a physical reality exists independently of our conscious observation of it)
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Thus, although the Darwinian materialist may hold that the Christian Theist is not being 'scientific' in his rejection of the Darwinist's reductive materialistic worldview, the fact of the matter is that empirical science itself has now crushed the Darwinian materialist's belief that material particles are the ultimate reality upon which all other 'scientific' explanations must ultimately be based. So thus in conclusion, although atheists, with their 'God of the gaps' argument. hold that, "into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God", the fact of the matter is that, without God, the atheistic materialist is forced to hold that everything that normal everyday people regard as being undeniably real, (I.e. personhood, free will, beauty, morality, etc.. etc...), is a delusion. Moreover, and more importantly as far as science itself is concerned, science itself has now falsified the Darwinian materialist's primary belief that material particles are 'real'. In short, it is not belief in God that is a delusion, but it is the Darwinist's belief that material particles are 'real' that is a delusion. Now to rephrase Nietzsche's 'God of the gaps' quote to more properly reflect what empirical science itself has now revealed to us, "into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called material particles".
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{June 6, 2021
June
06
Jun
6
06
2021
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

hnorman42 @ 37 -
My main point was that ID is not a case of option A against option B. It’s a case of option A against option not-A. They can’t both be wrong.
Why not?
To undermine one is to strengthen the other. And the problems with unintelligent forces producing the appearance of design are galling.
But ID doesn't test all theories involving unintelligent forces. It only tests one. If successful, it
The identity of the designer is a different story. To assert A, when B, C and D are possibilities, would be a gap argument.
Right, "an unidentified designer" is you A, so I think that is precisely a gap argument.Bob O'H_{June 6, 2021
June
06
Jun
6
06
2021
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

That seems far more prudent, and less like folly.
But the problem is that many prefer folly as we see on this site and in the world around us. Great explanation!jerry_{June 5, 2021
June
06
Jun
5
05
2021
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

M @39, seems like you have a worldview based on your subjective preference, as opposed to what is objectively true. At the end, what's true is going to be what's true, and our preferences matter not a whit. Why wouldn't you want to go with what's true, and conform yourself to that which you believe is true, based on a preponderance of the evidence, rather than fitting objective reality to meet your subjective preferences. That seems far more prudent, and less like folly.AnimatedDust_{June 5, 2021
June
06
Jun
5
05
2021
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Sandy, why don't you understand about the fundamental importance of opinion and fact? It is like 1+1=2, it is abc. The concepts of opinion and fact, are the basic tools for reasoning. Why don't you understand that? It is obvious. I appreciate the diversity of ordinary personal characters, and the saintly character is just one character. I loathe the kind of character that is always about doing the best. It strikes me as superficial. The correct fundamental understanding of making a choice, is for the subjective spirit to spontaneously make one of alternative futures the present. It's not about which option is the best. The goodness or evil are in the spirit doing the choosing, not in the chosen option. Then still it is good advise to think about what is best before you make a choice, but people become atheists and materialists, when they define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, without reference to the spirit making the choice.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 4, 2021
June
06
Jun
4
04
2021
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Of related note, in the following article Brian Miller presents an excellent historical overview of the debate between atheists and Theists, as well as the current state of the debate, as far as the scientific evidence itself in concerned.
Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting Brian Miller - June 2, 2021 Excerpt: In the opening talk, organizer Gerd Müller stated that the SEM, (the standard evolutionary model), could explain the modification or duplication of existing traits, but it could not explain such key challenges as the following (here, here): *The origin of complex new traits such as eyes (here, here, here). *The consistent pattern in the fossil record of the sudden appearance of radically new organisms followed by periods of no significant change (here, here). *The distribution of genetic variation in species. He was referring to the fact that no genetic variation exists in any species that would allow for large-scale transformations (here, here). For instance, crossbreeding dogs will only produce dogs since dogs only have dog genes. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darrel-falk-downplays-the-ramifications-of-the-royal-society-meeting/
bornagain77_{June 4, 2021
June
06
Jun
4
04
2021
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @24 regarding 21 My main point was that ID is not a case of option A against option B. It's a case of option A against option not-A. They can't both be wrong. To undermine one is to strengthen the other. And the problems with unintelligent forces producing the appearance of design are galling. The identity of the designer is a different story. To assert A, when B, C and D are possibilities, would be a gap argument. That would answer the middle option you presented (b) and that's the one that's really relevant to gap arguments. The other two, I think, are just saying that no explanation is final. That applies to all scientific arguments.hnorman42_{June 4, 2021
June
06
Jun
4
04
2021
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
You assert theory B because there are gaps in theory A.
There isn't any theory A. That is the problem. Some unknown processes did something sometime in the past, doesn't bode well for a mechanistic scenario.
The problems are (a) the gaps in theory A might be closed (e.g. if your model you used to show a gap is wrong, and a better one comes along), (b) theory B might also be wrong, (c) theory B might also have similar (or even worse) gaps.
You have just shown how to falsify the theory B.ET_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Earth to Bob O'H- We have found the fingerprints. And all you and your ilk can do is say there aren't any footprints.ET_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu That is one of the reasons I prefer Islam over Christianity,
Reason? You 've just confirmed my point. If you compare Jesus with Mohammed is there a single point where Mohammed is superior? Nope. But you prefer islam .Why? Because pure reason is not taken into account by yourself but you think is gonna be taken into account by others? with your Teach the difference between opinion and fact ? :))Sandy_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

That is one of the reasons I prefer Islam over Christianity, that the muslim aspiration is just to be ordinary people, as God created them, and not this kind of saints. There is a lot of respect in the way the prophet Muhammad brings the message to people. Serving the people in bringing the message, as well as serving God. And Islam emphasizes straightforwardness, it is really very much about belief in God, submitting to God in worhsip. As also the creationist conceptual scheme is just straightforward. Not fancy principles of right reasoning, but just the plain definitions of opinion and fact. And every ordinary opinion such as what do you like for breakfast, is a valid opinion, and also immoral opinions are logically valid. And not just fancy opinions based on principles of right reasoning, are valid. My solution could actually work. I mean, work bigtime, cause real societal change. And if it didn't produce massive changes, then ok, people would still have a better understanding of opinion and fact, which is also great. Also, evolutionists would go totally of their rocker if creationism is taught in school, so, that would be fun.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu So how do you envision an actual solution to the problems of the decay of civilization, Kairosfocus? Compare the solutions offered: Kairosfocus: Teach first principles of right reasoning – would take years for an individual to learn it, with specialized and therefore expensive training – would create an elite class of experts on the complicated subject, who could conspire to monopolize power, leading to corruption Syamsu: Teach the difference between opinion and fact, with the creationist conceptual scheme – would take a few weeks to learn a simple subject, that people already know intuitively from common discourse – would straight up immediately kill off materialism as wrong, and all the politics based on it, socialism
Nope. The only solution is to became a saint and that is posible only in christianity. The truth is not democratic is very exclusive.Sandy_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

MNY, whoever said the solution is simply to teach principles of right reason? I do think it is a key step to learn how to disentangle the mess and learn to think straight but that is far, far from the reformation we need. Mind you, last time around, a certain prof in a run of the mill uni posted 95 rather academic theological points for debate on a church door that went viral as printing presses had been invented about 50 years before, so maybe there is somewhat to that idea. KFkairosfocus_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

So how do you envision an actual solution to the problems of the decay of civilization, Kairosfocus? Compare the solutions offered: Kairosfocus: Teach first principles of right reasoning - would take years for an individual to learn it, with specialized and therefore expensive training - would create an elite class of experts on the complicated subject, who could conspire to monopolize power, leading to corruption Syamsu: Teach the difference between opinion and fact, with the creationist conceptual scheme - would take a few weeks to learn a simple subject, that people already know intuitively from common discourse - would straight up immediately kill off materialism as wrong, and all the politics based on it, socialismmohammadnursyamsu_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Aside: when I was researching a proposal for a dissertation in graduate school (finished ABD so no degree,) I was trying to conduct a scale of positive and negative characteristics for evaluating people. The most positive characteristic was “sincere” which showed people instinctively wanted honesty in people they were dealing with. Was this evidence for a natural law? I believe so. It’s built in. We used to joke that most desirable trait for a politician was the ability to fake sincerity. Ironically that seems to be a truism.jerry_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

You assert theory B because there are gaps in theory A.
The use of the word “assert” and “gaps” are ambiguous without modifiers. The statement might be better said
You assert theory B because theory B is definitely possible and there are gaps in theory A that seem insurmountable.
There is always the possibility that the gaps in theory A may become less insurmountable. But if anything the science of recent years has shown the gap to be getting bigger. Meanwhile B is getting easier to see how it is possible. Even Richard Dawkins agrees. As long as it’s not God. So it’s really a “Designer” of the gaps theory. I love the way HNorman42 expressed it.jerry_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

kf @ 25 -
BO’H & Sev: we know that design exists and often leaves fingerprints behind.
So look for the fingerprints. Don't look for the lack of footprints.Bob O'H_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

PS: The first duties issue, in summary:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction,while also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are first principles of rational, responsible, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
kairosfocus_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

BO'H & Sev: we know that design exists and often leaves fingerprints behind. An inference from empirically reliable sign to adequate causal process is not an appeal to ignorance. As to God and roots of morality it is by now pretty clear that rationality, as an expression of free responsible conduct, is morally governed by Ciceronian first duties that also frame civil law. Even objectors to such cannot but appeal to their pervasive legitimate authority to gain rhetorical traction for their claims. This means, self evident government by duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant] etc. We have a very legitimate inquiry as to what explains a world with such creatures, without reduction to absurdity. KFkairosfocus_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

Hnorman42 -
So is it an ID of the gaps argument? No. ID arguments generally turn on the question of demonstrating that unintelligent forces cannot produce the appearance of design. Showing the insufficiency of unintelligent forces is logically equivalent to showing the necessity of intelligent forces.
THank you - that is actually a nice summary of the God/Designer/Scientism of the Gaps argument. You assert theory B because there are gaps in theory A. The problems are (a) the gaps in theory A might be closed (e.g. if your model you used to show a gap is wrong, and a better one comes along), (b) theory B might also be wrong, (c) theory B might also have similar (or even worse) gaps.Bob O'H_{June 3, 2021
June
06
Jun
3
03
2021
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

Sev - You don`t want to believe thats fine ,but your not grasping the point , if ( an enormous if you may say)there is an all knowing all powerful , all moral, creator God who is the instructor of all moral wisdom and all reason and knowledge then we have a foundation for our morals, knowledge and reasoning's . If the material world is all there is, please briefly explain what foundation we have for morals, knowledge, reasoning. The argument for the existence of such a being is another argument, but the logic of my position is sound , how about the logic of your positionMarfin_{June 2, 2021
June
06
Jun
2
02
2021
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

Marfin/20
Sev- Humour me Sev , putting aside whether said god exists or not , is it not logical to claim that if a creator, designer, moral ,all knowing, law giving God exists then what it would be fair to say, is that if this God tell us what is moral and what is not , that love is good and hate is bad , that being a liar is bad and being honest is good that we can trust his judgement in these matters , and hence have a basis and foundation for our behaviour.
We can certainly listen to what He has to say and we might agree with much of it but how is it anything other than His opinion? If we cannot legitimately reason to moral principles from the nature of the physical Universe then neither can He. And if He can't then on what is He basing His moral judgments? The other problem is that while this image of God as an immensely wise and benign old gentleman may be very comforting, it is clearly at odds with the picture of God that emerges from the Old Testament. So which is it?Seversky_{June 2, 2021
June
06
Jun
2
02
2021
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

I do not understand why ID is often considered a God of the Gaps argument. If ID made any claims regarding God then it would be legitimate to speak of a gap argument. So is it an ID of the gaps argument? No. ID arguments generally turn on the question of demonstrating that unintelligent forces cannot produce the appearance of design. Showing the insufficiency of unintelligent forces is logically equivalent to showing the necessity of intelligent forces. This is not a case of saying "If A, then B" when C, D and E are on the table. This is a case of saying "If not not-A, then A." There is nothing else on the table.hnorman42_{June 2, 2021
June
06
Jun
2
02
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Sev- Humour me Sev , putting aside whether said god exists or not , is it not logical to claim that if a creator, designer, moral ,all knowing, law giving God exists then what it would be fair to say, is that if this God tell us what is moral and what is not , that love is good and hate is bad , that being a liar is bad and being honest is good that we can trust his judgement in these matters , and hence have a basis and foundation for our behaviour.Marfin_{June 1, 2021
June
06
Jun
1
01
2021
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply