God Is Not a Science-Gap Filler

I sometimes hear atheists say that as science advances, religion retreats, and soon there will be no need for religion. It's a particularly narrow understanding of our relationship with God (speaking as a Christian here)—as if God's main function in our lives is to provide an explanation for events in nature. While some primitive, pagan religions may have focused on explaining and manipulating nature, the Bible presents quite a different picture of the true God. He's a Person Who interacts with us in all aspects of our lives—not just in the area of nature, but also love, morality, guilt, meaning, justice, forgiveness, worship, and so much more.

Along these lines, philosopher Bill Vallicella (not a Christian) has a post titled "Why Science Will Never Put Religion Out of Business," in which he discusses the aspects of our humanity that only religion can address. He concludes that since religion responds to problems science is not equipped to solve, no amount of scientific knowledge could ever take its place:

But I have said enough to make clear what sorts of problems religion addresses.  It follows that the salvation religion promises is not to be understood in some crass physical sense the way the typical superficial and benighted atheist-materialist would take it but as salvation from meaninglessness, anomie, spiritual desolation, Unheimlichkeit, existential insecurity, Angst, ignorance and delusion, false value-prioritizations, moral corruption irremediable by any human effort, failure to live up to ideals, the vanity and transience of our lives, meaningless sufferings and cravings and attachments, the ultimate pointlessness of all efforts at moral and intellectual improvement in the face of death . . . .

I should add that anyone who doesn't feel these problems to be genuine problems will have no understanding of religion at all.  And I remind the reader that I do not assume that any religion can deliver on its promises of salvation from the above litany of problems. My point is that natural science and its resulting technologies are powerless to solve these problems.

My point is not to say that we (Christians) embrace God because we need Him to fill these unfilled gaps. Rather, I write this to widen atheists' understanding of the areas of our lives in which we relate to God. And notice that I put this in terms of His "interacting with us" in these areas, not merely saying that His existence answers questions in these areas. Our experience of God as a Person entails far more than a provision of intellectual answers.

(HT: @thinknz)

Comments

[Trent]

There seem to be a lot of scientists who disbelieve that science will destroy religion.

Some of the most important physicists who ever lived were devout Christians.

The folks over at Reasons to Believe have an entire ministry based on the latest science.

Michio Kaku refused to debate the subject ( being replaced on the panel by Richard Dawkims) because he considered the existence of God undecidable from a scientific point of view.

Science simply describes the means God used to do things.

[Alex]

Hasn't Dawkins shown that the percentage of highly respected scientists in this category is very tiny?

[Isaac]

It should be noted that not all atheists depend mainly on science to refute Christianity. Not only is it the Christian's job to explain why he or she believes Christianity to be correct (as this is his or her burden of proof), but the atheist can come up with other, non-scientific arguments to attack Christianity, e.g. the problem of evil and the argument from nonbelief, and/or pointing out Christian fallacies, e.g. God of the gaps.

[Trent]

90% I've met just stick to "I don't like it"

If I wasn't a christian, I'd have to be a hard core materialist. I don't see another viable option.

The problem is I know enough science to know the consequences of such a system, is not good unless you try to sneak religious ideas in the backdoor and pretend they aren't.

The "other views" seem to me the results of throwing away christian thought until you get to the point where you can't throw more away and still be comfortable. I've thought about this and my view, which some may reject, is very boolean. Either Christianity is true, or hard core materialism is true.

[KWM]

Isaac,

Let’s not jump right into Christianity. Why doesn’t the atheist share a burden of proof in believing that life came from nonlife and given sufficient time, heterotrophic anaerobes can turn into astronauts?

[SteveK]

KWM,

Why doesn’t the atheist share a burden of proof in believing that life came from nonlife and given sufficient time

This one area where the facts of science support the Christian worldview very strongly.

Testing demonstrates that 100% of the time life is required to be an integral part of the process of producing life. We have no data that shows life can come from non-life all by itself. It's imagined that it can.

This is not a proof of Christianity, rather, it's support for it. Some of the online detractors won't even admit to this much.

[Trent]

The standard "Science disproves God" Atheist tends to play on the general public ignorance of science.

Most people don't know enough science to tell the difference between science and scientificaly themed philosophical speculation.

Just because the speculation is being done by a scientist, does not mean that it is science.

[RonH]

Not guilty.

This is the alternative to guilty in a criminal trial.

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent : it means the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof.

As an atheist, my position is equivalent to not guilty - the theist's burden of proof is not met. My position is not equivalent to innocent - the theist is proven wrong.

It's not that you don't produce any evidences or arguments - reasons to believe. You do.

But some of them are just bad. And the best ones either don't really point in the right direction or they don't point far enough. The burden is not met.

In a trial, sentencing (the consequence) is taken up only after a verdict of guilty.

Follow the analogy: how you 'relate' to or 'interact' with your god (the consequence) can wait until after you've met your burden of proof.

Such relations and interactions could serve as evidence themselves. But, as far as any outsider can tell, they are internal to y'all.

Suppose the human condition (mortal animal) leads to the whole dismal list Vallicella provides?

So what? Make the list 10 times as depressing and long. It is STILL not a reason to believe, though it can be made into an apologetic.

I'll allow that even a much kinder, gentler, and shorter list than Vallicella's could keep religion 'in business'. Again: So what?

RonH

[SteveK]

RonH,

The [Theists} burden is not met.

My position is equivalent of not guilty - your burden of proof is not met.

[Trent]

Burden of proof is on the person who is trying to convince another to change their position.

If you were to try to convince me to accept atheism, the burden is not on me to prove you wrong to your satisfaction to maintain my position. If you want me to accept your position, the burden of proof is on you to show me why I am wrong and you are right. I only have the burden of proof if I seek to get you to change your mind.

If we both are trying to convince each other to change their minds, we each have the burden of proof for our positions.

I lack belief in the tiresome idea that in casual conversation if opposed, I must defend my ideas using similar rules used in a courtroom to be allowed to hold my opinion. If you do not meet the burden of proof of explaining why I should change my mind, there is no reason to change it. You don't get a free pass on convincing me simply because you claim atheism.

[Daron]

""But some of them are just bad. And the best ones either don't really point in the right direction or they don't point far enough. The burden is not met.""

The problem is we have a juror who is not very good with argument and evidence but rests his own life on his competence in this area.

[SteveK]

It's not that you don't produce any evidences or arguments - reasons to believe. You do.

Then why don't you believe? The fact that you may not be completely convinced, want more evidence, have doubts, etc should not stop you from acting on what you do have - which is valid reasons to believe. Welcome to the real world of justified true belief.

So what's stopping you, RonH?

[RonH]

SteveK,

You quote mined me in your last. Just read on. I don't understand your first.

Trent,

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Here is an example of how this plays out.

Suppose you offer (only) the TAG argument and I deny it. My only burden is to refute TAG. I have no burden to convince you God doesn't exist.

RonH

[Trent]

If you want me to change my mind and accept a position you hold or put forward, you are making a claim.

If you are not making a claim, there is no reason to agree with you.

Besides, if the majority of the population of the world disagrees with you, you are the one making the claim you want accepted. It is not the whole world's responsibility to agree with RonH if they can't prove he is wrong to his satisfaction. That would require quite an ego.

In short, if you want me to agree with you, and I currently don't, your burden of proof is greater than stating that you are an atheist and have no such burden. It may make you feel smugly superior, but it doesn't work in the real world.

In short, I do not concede what I am "allowed" to believe has anything to do with your views. I have no burden to maintain my beliefs, and you have a burden if you want them to change. atheism vs Christian is irrelevant.
Your argument about TAG is flawed. It proves nothing other than you do not believe it. It says nothing about the truth of God's existence, it only speaks to your personal view. It doesn't even mean the arguement is flawed. It may be that you are philosophically unable to accept it despite any validity.

[Trent]

RonH

Your argument sounds a lot like what you hear from conspiracy theorists.

"If I deny the moon landing video, I do not have the burden of proving the moon landing was a fake made by aliens who don't want us to go there."

No you woudn't, unless you actually wanted me to agree with you. It still isn't my burden to prove it actually happened, if I didn't care enough to take the time to correct you.

[SteveK]

RonH,

You quote mined me in your last. Just read on.

I hope I didn't quote mine, and I did read on.

You didn't say you had reasons to reject the "reasons to believe" that you said Theists have so I took it that you didn't have any.

If you don't have any then there's nothing stopping you from accepting those reasons, and act.

I don't understand your first.

You said the Theist has not met his burden. That's a claim you are burdened with. One I have not seen you give evidence for. Therefore, I say "not guilty" until such time as you meet your burden.

[Rc]

Sorry, guy.

If you say you don't believe in God you have no burden of proof.

if you want other people to not believe in God you do.

[RonH]

Trent,

Sorry, I'll try to be clearer.

When you say God exists, you take the burden of showing God exists.

Suppose you offer only TAG. Then if I refute TAG, you have failed to meet your burden. Refuting TAG doesn't saddle me with any further burden. In particular, refuting TAG doesn't saddle me with the burden of showing that God doesn't exist.

If I refute TAG and you then say you still believe, that's fine. I will simply ask you why.

Notice that a theist could consistently refute TAG (if he had other reasons to believe).

The burden of proof has nothing to do with wanting to change anyone's mind.

Don't take my word for this. Google it or look it up in the library. Look up argumentum ad populum while you are at it.

SteveK,

You said

You didn't say you had reasons to reject the "reasons to believe" that you said Theists have

That is exactly what I meant by

But some of them are just bad. And the best ones either don't really point in the right direction or they don't point far enough.

RonH

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

"But some of them are just bad. And the best ones either don't really point in the right direction or they don't point far enough. "

Are you saying that some of the best arguments point away from existence of god when they are meant to point towards it? Is it correct to say that other best arguments point toward god's existence, but you simply do not find them sufficiently compelling?

Would these two questions accurately depict your position or am I off base?

[Jesse]

RonH, now you have me curious to know what you think: Which are the bad arguments; and which are the best arguments?

[Daron]

""I have no burden to convince you God doesn't exist.

RonH""

Then why do you keep reading and posting here?
"I am not convinced by any apologetic arguments" is a really interesting tidbit form your autobiography, but it seems almost irrational that you keep sharing this information if that is all you are doing.
It would seem you actually have a purpose or goal in mind when you keep commenting, and that, as such, you have assumed a burden as well.

Your burden can be lightened, RonH.

[Jesse]

RonH,

Scratch my last comment-- I'm more curious to know the answer to Daron's question:

>> Then why do you [RonH] keep reading and posting here?

[RonH]

Louis,

Not really away - more like off to the side.

Take fine tuning. I'll call it one of the best because a defeater for it would be pretty concrete: if someone could say why this or that constant has its value, that constant would go right off the list. And so on for all the rest. I would like to have this argument defeated.

We don't have it. But...

Not necessity, not chance, therefore design is how the argument goes.

But to talk about necessity or chance requires some kind of context. That context cannot be our world - the thing we are trying to explain with the argument. In what context - in what sense - are we talking of necessity or chance when it comes to this to fine-tuning?

Incredibly unlikely given what? Necessary under what circumstances?

So, on one hand, I could call the argument one of the better ones because I can't defeat it. On the other hand I don't really think it points at God. Not away either.

I suspect that if the constants WERE all shown to be necessary whatever that would mean, THAT would have been the basis for some argument. Perhaps one day it will become just that.

Thanks for the question.

RonH

[Daron]

"" I would like to have this argument defeated.""

There you have it.

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

No, thank YOU for your answer.

"So, on one hand, I could call the argument one of the better ones because I can't defeat it. On the other hand I don't really think it points at God. Not away either."

So, you don't think it points to God and not away. Would you say you are a agnostic regarding where it points?

[Trent]

RonH that is true, as long as you don't want me to accept the position that I am supposedly using TAG ( an argument I don't care for myself) to argue against

I take it you don't wish me to agree with your position.

[SteveK]

RonH,
I was talking about "the best ones that don't go far enough". You didn't give reasons for why you think these best arguments don't go far enough. That is your burden to shoulder.

When 9 out of 10 jurors say "guilty" (these would be the Theists), the one juror has some explaining to do.

On the other hand I don't really think it points at God. Not away either.

Orthogonal, perhaps? It points somewhere, RonH, and there are only 2 options on the table - Theism and atheism. Are you suggesting a third option to where these facts are pointing us to?

[Alex]

False dichotomy

You can't show there is no third option.

[RonH]

SteveK,

Suppose there are only (those) 2 options on the table. That doesn't show that the fine-tuning argument works.

Not even the existence of God would prove the fine-tuning argument works; it is certainly possible to make a bad argument for something that is true.

Taking atheism to mean the position that God's existance is not shown. If all the current arguments are bad, then I, an atheist, am right. If God nontheless exists you, then you, a theist, are right too - in spite of having nothing but bad arguments.

Louis,

The concept has potential. But, compared to an actual physics argument, the presentations I've heard/seen are very squishy.

RonH

[Alex]

Atheism is by definition a lack of belief and therefore there is never a burden of proof on them. Theists, by definition, always have a burden of proof which can never be met.

Anyone who believes differently should look up basic logic.

[SteveK]

Alex,

You can't show there is no third option.

If you're not proposing one then we don't have to discuss it. I'm not proposing a third option, but maybe RonH is, that's why I asked.

[SteveK]

Alex,

False dichotomy

Oops, I jumped the gun. I should have started with this. You are saying there is a third option. What is it and what are your reasons for thinking it is an option?

[SteveK]

RonH,

That doesn't show that the fine-tuning argument works.

Then it's not one of these "best arguments" for Theism that you said existed, so lets not even discuss it. I have to wonder why you even brought it up.

Give us some of "the best" and tell us why they don't go far enough toward rendering a "guilty" verdict.

[SteveK]

Alex,

Atheism is by definition a lack of belief and therefore there is never a burden of proof on them.

Your burden is not to prove the case, but to provide reasons why the evidence is not sufficient or is somehow faulty/lacking. They call this a rejoinder.

Defense attorney's have a similar burden. Failure to provide a rejoinder means you don't think there are reasons to disagree with the one making the claim.

Saying only that you lack belief in the prosecution's case, that he hasn't met his burden of proof, doesn't mean the defendant is automatically declared not guilty.

Those judging the case will ask you "on what grounds do you say the case has not been made". Repeating the same statement won't get you anywhere with the judges. It shows you are stonewalling and have no case.

[Alex]

Atheists do not have a burden of proof because they do not claim anything. Theists have because they do.

RonH is right. If your arguements have flaws, which all do, then I'm right.

How long will it take before Christians will understand that you can never prove my belief wrong because I don't have one.

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

"The concept has potential. But, compared to an actual physics argument, the presentations I've heard/seen are very squishy."

I suppose that in the old days the butcher did not even notice his thumb on his scale once he got used to doing it to everybody. Have you considered the possibility that you no longer have any feeling in the thumb and that your central nervous system is no longer reporting a bias or is no longer processing it due to habituation?

[PhD in Physics]

Louis

The fine tuning argument is rubbish. Deal with it.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Dear Physics

"The fine tuning argument is rubbish. Deal with it."

I will deal with it when I see other than still-born alternatives.

[PhD in Physics]

Louis

That's precisely the point. You should be seeking positive evidence for your deity. Correct me if Im wrong but the fine tuning argument is "I believe that the universe is fine tuned and that this could not have come about naturally, therefore god did it" or similar.
This is an argument from incredulity. You have presupposed that your deity exists and haven't offered an explanation as to how god did it. The explanatory power of your explanation is precisely zero.
The universe isn't "fine-tuned" for us, rather we are "fine-tuned" for it courtesy of the requirement to conform to the physical laws thereof.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Dear Physics

I am willing to entertain the possibility of your position being the correct one and will give it as much weight as the evidence on its side allows. However, it will get no more than that.

Our fine tuning slips into a discussion about evolution and there are aspects of human beings that the evolutionary model fails to address at all. It is on the basis of that "evidence", not "an argument from incredulity" that I base my views. The whole of my views on various topics must be encompassed to see the whole panoramic picture that is my integrated view on this topic.

[SteveK]

Alex,

Atheists do not have a burden of proof because they do not claim anything. Theists have because they do.

If you read my comment you will see that I agree with you, so you can stop repeating this.

I also said you have a *different* burden if you want other people to think *you* are correct. If atheists as a whole want to do little more than shout "that proves nothing" or "I lack belief", that's up to you guys.

Just know that you will lose far, far more "cases" than you will win had you actually offered up a defense in response to the evidence and arguments that the prosecution has offered.

[PhD in Physics]

Louis

"Our fine tuning slips into a discussion about evolution and there are aspects of human beings that the evolutionary model fails to address at all. It is on the basis of that "evidence", not "an argument from incredulity" that I base my views."

You just contradicted yourself. Here is your argument:
1. Evolution cant explain aspects of human beings.
2. Therefore God created human beings
That is a(nother) argument from incredulity. Evolution not being able to explain things does *NOT* provide positive evidence for you to lever god into the mix.
Besides, I never mentioned evolution.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Physics

"You just contradicted yourself. Here is your argument:
1. Evolution cant explain aspects of human beings.
2. Therefore God created human beings"

No actually, my argument is not so thin. That is why I stated that it is the whole collection of evidence that I am perceiving that must be taken into account, not just the portions I have so far expressed here. The only thing point 1 and 2 do is get me to the point where design becomes a reasonable option.

"That is a(nother) argument from incredulity. "

Well my friend [SMILE] then please do not impose it on me.

"Evolution not being able to explain things does *NOT* provide positive evidence for you to lever god into the mix."

What it does is offer other sets of options and that includes the very real possibility that evolution is not the whole story.

"Besides, I never mentioned evolution."

What exactly does, "we are "fine-tuned" for it", then mean?

[Louis Kuhelj]

Correction on my previous post...that reference should be "The only thing point 1 gets me"

[RonH]

Louis,

I am here, in part, to expose myself to alternative views. <<<<

I also listen to WLC, Unbelieveable, Apologetics.com, Frank Turek. These sources are reputed to be among the best for these views. I even listen to Matt Slick and Keith Kendrex.

We are all susceptible to cognitive biases. So we all need to ask ourselves continually, even continuously, whether we have our finger on the balance.

So you are welcome to remind me of this. Better still, show me the where and how of how my thinking has gone wrong. That would be great. You'll enjoy it more than giving a broad warning and it will be more useful to me.

No doubt I give opportunities.

I enjoy offering such corrections.

That's another reason I come here. <<<<

For example, take the STR radio show of 24 Oct 2011.

Talking with Adrian in Portland, Greg sets up a straw man regarding determinism. I can't reproduce the conversation here so please go listen to it.

This train wreck starts on my iPod at 7:15 in Chapter 3 of the enhanced podcast, 48:40 in iTunes and climaxes with this

"If it's my dominoes falling, I would be doing whatever I'm doing even if you didn't call.

It's all... dominoes... falling.

To his credit, Adrian knows phone conversations are not incompatible with determinism. He politely explains why. Greg sputters at this, withdraws the straw man a bit, and finally, sensing Adrian will not really resist, fully advances the straw man again. Then Greg changes the subject having defeated his straw man.

It's pure apologetic gold.

But wait THERE'S MORE!

If you listen to this same call you don't just get the determinism straw man you also get an evolution straw man ABSOLUTLEY FREE.

I find it on my iPod at 12:51 in Chapter 3 of the enhanced podcast, and at 53:17 in iTunes. It peaks with

Why isn't all of the bad stuff gone if nature is constantly choosing for the empathetic. Our planet should be covered with empathetic people. But it's not. And, arguably things are getting worse which is exactly the opposite the opposite of what you'd expect if evolution were choosing quote unquote good.

Greg knows better - or seems to. I've heard him correctly define evolution: natural selection (of overall reproductive fitness, not 'good') from a population containing variations (due to random genitic mutations).

If you want, I'll look up the one where Greg proves duality by showing that the mind is not the brain.

RonH

[Alex]

Atheism is the default position of all humanity.

Theists are required to explain why they are deviance, rather than atheists explain whythey are not.

[Trent]

Physics

Other physicist don't believe fine tuning is rubbish.

Why should I accept your opinion over theirs?

(I'm not saying you or wrong, or are actually a physicist, but with the amount of information you have given why is your statement supposed to convince me?)

[PhD in Physics]

Trent

If your god is omnipotent why must he (it?) be constrained by adherence to a narrow band of cosmological constants?

You don't have to accept my opinion at all. But invoking a deity is not a useful explanation and that is why you dont see any mention of deity(ies) in scientific papers.

The majority of scientists explain 'fine-tuning' by means of a weak anthropic principle. The universe only appears designed because if it hadn't had properties that permitted life like us, we wouldn't be here.

There is also the Strong anthropic principle which asserts that the universe is formed with the goal of generating and sustaining observers.

There is precisely zero evidence for the latter position: it is a religious one. And therefore its impossible to know if it actually correct or not i.e. you cant know the answer by examining observational reality.

Does that explain?

[Trent]

No. That explains nothing.

"If your god is omnipotent why must he (it?) be constrained by adherence to a narrow band of cosmological constants?"

I never said he was.

"You don't have to accept my opinion at all. But invoking a deity is not a useful explanation and that is why you dont see any mention of deity(ies) in scientific papers."

Perhaps because it is ruled out a priori?

"The majority of scientists explain 'fine-tuning' by means of a weak anthropic principle. The universe only appears designed because if it hadn't had properties that permitted life like us, we wouldn't be here."

Not convincing. It is saying were here because we're here, because if we weren't here we wouldn't be here.

"There is also the Strong anthropic principle which asserts that the universe is formed with the goal of generating and sustaining observers."

Yes, that is a definition used.

"There is precisely zero evidence for the latter position: it is a religious one. And therefore its impossible to know if it actually correct or not i.e. you cant know the answer by examining observational reality."

You mean like string theory and multiverses? (except for the religious part, although it has been claimed that multiverses were conjectured to counter religious ideas) It still begs the question how you can claim there actually IS zero evidence if you haven't seen all evidence? Did Black Holes not exist because Netwon did not see evidence for them, or did they exist and he just not know about them?

How exactly do you prove a zero probablility? Isn't that similar to proving a negative?

"Does that explain?"

Not at all.

You threw out two definitions, said the popular one is the first( an argument that RonH clearly put to bed when he pointed me to the argumentum ad populum) and said the second one is not scientific because there is no evidence (that you know about).

The same argument has been leveled against the link between cancer and smoking.

All you said is of two options that you identified, you support one.

When I real Ross, Zweerink, Tipler, Davies, Penrose, Hoyle and others (realizing they are not all theists) say that the weak antropic principle doesn't explain anything, and when I hear Kaku say that the answer is undecidable using physics, what are you bringing to the table?

[SteveK]

Alex,

Atheism is the default position of all humanity.

Theism is the result for most of all humanity. If you fail to provide reasons for atheism being true (your burden) then you can expect the trend to continue.