It is not uncommon in discussions over controversial topics for one side to accuse the other of fallaciously “arguing from ignorance” or from “personal incredulity”. In discussions of intelligent design versus Darwinian naturalism the closely related “God-of-the-gaps” objection is frequently leveled. I believe that most attributions of these fallacies are uncharitable and undeserved.
Consider the argument from ignorance:
There is no evidence for X.
Therefore, X is false.
Clearly, this is invalid. If the only information we have bearing on X is that there is an absence of evidence for X, then the inference is clearly fallacious. But is it typically the case that that’s the only relevant information available to the arguer? Let’s change the argument slightly:
There is no evidence for X.
If X were true, then we would have evidence for X.
Therefore, X is false.
This is a perfectly reasonable argument strategy. It fact, it’s an instance of modus tollens. Hence, whether one commits a fallacious argument from ignorance depends on whether or not one is justified in believing the appropriate if-then premise connecting the lack of evidence for X with the claim that X is false. And in many cases we are justified in believing that premise. For example, suppose that I have lost my keys and think they might be near my nightstand. I go to my nightstand and do a thorough search of the area and do not find the keys. There is no evidence that my keys are near my nightstand, but in the light of my search my keys really should have turned up by now if they had been near my nightstand. So I do not reason fallaciously if I conclude that my keys lie somewhere else. I suspect that many (if not most) allegedly fallacious arguments from ignorance are like this. They are really instances of modus tollens with a unstated conditional premise.
Now consider the argument from incredulity:
I cannot imagine how X could be true.
Therefore, X is false.
Again, this is clearly invalid. If the only information I have bearing on X is my own inability to imagine how it could be true, then the inference is clearly fallacious. But now consider the following:
I cannot imagine how X could be true.
If X were true, then I would be able to imagine how X could be true.
Therefore, X is false.
This revised argument is not fallacious, but a valid instance of modus tollens. As before, everything hinges on the conditional premise. If I take myself to be highly intelligent and informed about matters related to X, and if I’ve seriously tried to come up with a plausible argument for X, then I think I’d be in a pretty good position to affirm that premise. I suspect that many (if not most) allegedly fallacious arguments from incredulity are really instances of modus tollens with a unstated conditional premise.
Finally, the so-called “God-of-the-gaps” fallacy can be handled in exactly the same way.
X is a fact that stands in need of explanation.
There do not appear to be any adequate naturalistic explanations for X.
Therefore, there is a supernaturalistic explanation for X.
As it stands, this is problematic because the fact that there does not “appear” to be an adequate naturalistic explanation may be due to intellectual laziness or ignorance on my part. But if I’ve done my homework well – if I am sufficiently intelligent and informed, if I have identified decisive flaws with existing naturalistic explanations (if any), and if I have seriously tried and repeatedly failed to come up with a workable naturalistic explanation, then I can reason cogently as follows:
X is a fact that stands in need of explanation.
There do not appear to be any adequate naturalistic explanations for X.
If X had a naturalistic explanation, then we ought to have come up with an adequate one by now.
Therefore, there is a supernaturalistic explanation for X.
In conclusion, we ought to be very careful before accusing people of committing these types of fallacies. If the person has done enough to justify the relevant conditional premise, then there is no fallacy. Whether the person has done enough to justify that premise may, of course, be disputable, but that’s where the dispute should focus.
Similarly atheists think that if there were a good God who wanted them to beieve in His existence, then He could easily have made it more obvious to them, whence there is no such God; which they may shorten to “I see no need for that hypothesis.”
No more Gaps!
The first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the Gospel and moral teachings of Christ is on the web. Redefining all primary elements including Faith, the Word, Baptism, the Trinity and the Resurrection, this new interpretation questions the validity and origins of all Christian tradition; it overturns all natural law ethics and theory. At stake is the credibility of several thousand years of religious history and moral teaching.
This new teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect. What science and religion have agreed was not possible, has now become all too inevitable.
Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle, and offers the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds directly to an act of perfect faith with a individual intervention into the natural world; 'raising up the man' correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Intended to be understood metaphorically, where 'death' is ignorance and 'Life' is knowledge, this experience, personal encounter of transcendent power and moral purpose is the 'Resurrection', and justification for faith. Here is where true morality, called righteousness begins.
Here then is the first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged. This new teaching delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable and 'extraordinary' evidence based truth embodied in action. For the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must now measure for itself, the reality of a new claim to revealed truth, a moral tenet not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rationally justifiable belief!
This is 'religion' without any of the conventional trappings of tradition. An individual, virtue-ethical conception, independent of all cultural perception in a single moral command, and the single Law finds it's expression of obedience within a new covenant of marriage. It requires no institutional framework or hierarchy, no churches or priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, dogma or doctrine and ‘worship’ requires only conviction, faith and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new, single, categorical moral imperative and the integrity and fidelity to the new reality.
If confirmed, this will represent a paradigm change in the moral and intellectual potential of human nature itself; untangling the greatest questions of human existence: consciousness, meaning, suffering, free will and evil. And at the same time addressing the most profound problems of our age.
Trials of this new teaching are open to all and under way in many countries. For those individuals who will question their own prejudices, who can imagine outside the historical cultural box, with the moral courage to learn something new, and test this for themselves, to stand against the stream of fashionable thought and spin, an intellectual and moral revolution is already under way, where the 'impossible' becomes inevitable, with the most potent Non Violent Direct Action any human being can take to advance peace, justice, change and progress.
Published [at the moment] only on the web, a typeset manuscript of this new teaching is available as a free [1.4meg] PDF download from a variety of sites including:
[www].energon.org.uk
God of the gaps
I will begin this article with two postulates: 1) God has created this universe, 2) He has brought man in this universe with some purpose.
I am not claiming here that these two postulates are true, or that I can prove them to be true. But I want to show here that if these two postulates are true, then God will always be the God of the gaps. Anyone who will be reading this article should not forget that there is an “if” clause in the last sentence.
Now I will begin with the supposition that God has created this universe. If God has created this universe, then He could have created it in four different ways: 1) He created it in such a way that there was no necessity for Him to intervene in it after creation, 2) After creation He intervened in it, but these interventions were a bare minimum, that is, He intervened only when these were absolutely necessary. In order to clarify my point here, I will say that He intervened only when He found that without His intervention the universe would come to a standstill, 3) He created the universe in such a way that in order to keep it going He had to make very frequent interventions in it, 4) God's total intervention after creation.
If it was the purpose of God to keep mankind crippled in every possible way, then He would have adopted either the third or the fourth way while creating the universe. This is because in these two cases man, in spite of his having sufficient intelligence and reasoning power, will fail to unveil the secrets of nature, because in almost every phenomenon of nature that he will decide to study he will ultimately find that there always remains an unknown factor, for which he will have no explanation. For him the book of nature will thus remain closed forever. But if it were God's purpose that man be master of His creation, then it is quite natural for Him that He would try to keep the book of nature as much open to him as possible, so that with the little intelligence he has been endowed with man will be able to decipher the language of nature, and with that acquired knowledge he will also be able to improve the material conditions of his life. In that case God will try to adopt the policy of maximum withdrawal from His creation. He will create the universe in such a way that without His intervention the created world will be able to unfold itself. However that does not mean that He will never intervene. He will definitely intervene when without His intervention the created world would become stagnant. In such a scenario man will be able to give an explanation of almost all physical events in scientific language. But in those cases where God has actually intervened, he will fail to do so.
So I think there is no reason for us to be ashamed of the “God of the gaps” hypothesis. Yes, if God has created the universe, and if God’s purpose was that man be master of His creation, then He would try to keep as little gap in His creation as possible. But the minimum gap that would be ultimately left can never be bridged by any sort of scientific explanation. God will also reside in that gap. Why should we be ashamed of that?
Therefore, I can conclude this article in this way: If God created this universe, and if God wanted man to be the master of His creation, then God would willingly choose to be “God of the gaps”.
A theistic God will always prefer to be the God of the gaps.