Talk:God of the Gaps
From Theopedia
Recent Reversion
I have moved the recent added material here to the talk page for three reasons. (1) The discussion seems to be somewhat at odds with the existing material in suggesting its goal is to close the gaps, which is not how I see it. (2) In view of the claims made in this addition, we need reference citations to published sources in several locations, and (3) some statements read like opinion, which is not in accord with the Writing Guide.
- Another problem with the God of the Gaps argument is the it rests on the assumption: because we understand more and more about the universe with each passing day, we will therefore understand everything about the universe.<citation> In no other scientific or artistic discipline is it the case that man has successfully "closed all gaps." To this day in mathematics there are several problems which have not been solved despite having been studied for over a century, such as P versus NP, the Hodge conjecture, the Riemann hypothesis, etc. The God of the Gaps argument is tantamount to saying: "We haven't explained everything but ultimately we will explain everything."<citation>
- "The God of the Gaps argument also rests on the unproven assumption that there is a material explanation for everything comprehensible by man's science.<citation> For instance, let us analyze two competing scientific views of the world Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics. When Newtonian physics was first posited it certainly had not explained everything yet it rapidly encompassed a large breadth of physical reality. Before Einstein it had seemingly closed almost every gap if not every gap. Newtonian physics relied on the assumption that time is universal irregardless of one's speed, an assumption that was ultimately disproved. In a similar way the God of the Gaps argument starts from the assumption that there is a material explanation for everything, and that man's science will eventually subsume all areas into its dominion. Similarly in political science there are two competing schools which seek to explain political behavior: realism which states that all political actions are the result of man's quest for power or his lack thereof, and idealism which states that on some occasions man does act in accordance with high, lofty moral principals. Let us say for argument's sake that philosophers had just begun to study political science and that the realists school was able to rapidly explain 70% to 80% of the cases and were explaining more and more with each passing year. Yet the idealists were able to point to some hard cases where their theory did not apply. It would be absurd for the realists to point to those cases and say: "This is just a gap in your/our knowledge. We do not have the explanation yet but we will eventually. After all, we are right when we say that all political actions are the result of man's quest for power or his lack thereof."
We can discuss it and make adjustments here on the talk page to get a concensus before re-inserting it in the article. Thanks, Jim Ellis 15:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
as far as: in suggesting its goal is to close the gaps - i don't understand what you mean.
as far as citations, these are my own ideas. i don't see why because no one else has thought of it that it should therefore be disqualified
as far as reading like opinion - isn't all of philosophy opinion?
- It would help if you read the Writing Guide and tried to make edits and additions accordingly. Thanks for your interest. Jim Ellis 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
