14 Logical Fallacies in 14 Minutes
Clay Arnall, 24 Nov. 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QepFGJj74o
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Is God of the Gaps a Fallacy?
- Clay Arnall
- Definitely. It’s basically an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Clay Arnall Let me see if I can reconstruct your train of thought correctly ...
Knowledge comes in individual and unsystematic, and in science.
Science is always necessarily incomplete, but infinitely completable.
Science rules out appeals to God, and will answer everything we now know how to ask, because that is finite.
Therefore, in order to answer a thing to which Science has no non-Theistic answer, the correct procedure is to posit a future non-Theistic answer (also otherwise in principle accessible to Science) and take a guess at it - and to posit instead a Theistic answer, and as already known, is ignorance of the future non-Theistic answer ...
Was that about it?
- Next day
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Clay Arnall I asked "was that about it" and you didn't answer - shall I take that as a yes?
Because, if so, I find it problematic.
A) Can one have "appeal to ignorance" in the case when the ignorance is one of future, not yet available, discoveries?
B) Why would the future discoveries necessarily be supportive of what one might call a "scientific world view" rather than a Theistic one?
20 Most Common Logical Fallacies
Dr. Jason Lepojärvi, 13 Jan 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYIlGsL4W4E
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Is God of the Gaps a Fallacy?
- Dr. Jason Lepojärvi
- Good question. I suppose it could easily be defined in a way that approaches a fallacy. In any case, "Therefore, God did it" will not convince anyone who categorically rejects the miraculous.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Dr. Jason Lepojärvi Easily?
Take a try.
"will not convince anyone who categorically rejects the miraculous."
Fallacies or good logic are not about how it is received by those categorically opposed to one's position, right?
- Next day
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Dr. Jason Lepojärvi OK, you didn't take a try, even if it was easy.
I actually asked someone else as well, he claimed it was a version of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and I asked him what exactly that would boil down to. First I made a try to define God of the gaps as a fallacy. He neither confirmed nor denied it, and next day I gave my objections - to which he has also not answered since yesterday.
My try:
Let me see if I can reconstruct your train of thought correctly ...
Knowledge comes in individual and unsystematic, and in science.
Science is always necessarily incomplete, but infinitely completable.
Science rules out appeals to God, and will answer everything we now know how to ask, because that is finite.
Therefore, in order to answer a thing to which Science has no non-Theistic answer, the correct procedure is to posit a future non-Theistic answer (also otherwise in principle accessible to Science) and take a guess at it - and to posit instead a Theistic answer, and as already known, is ignorance of the future non-Theistic answer ...
Was that about it?
My Objections:
Because, if so, I find it problematic.
A) Can one have "appeal to ignorance" in the case when the ignorance is one of future, not yet available, discoveries?
B) Why would the future discoveries necessarily be supportive of what one might call a "scientific world view" rather than a Theistic one?
- Tiberius Gracchus
- I would say that the God of the gaps idea has two logical fallacies: the theory is unfalsifiable , and as it is usually presented, represents a false dilemma.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tiberius Gracchus Both problems are easily resolved.
1) We do not deal with a position that could not be falsified in any conceivable setting, but one that is verified by us being there to verify our setting;
2) When it comes to "false dilemma" it's easy to claim if you can base that, not on "tertium datur, hoc nempe" but rather on "there are a million of possibilities" ...
That said, "God of the gaps" is not how we describe our Theistic apologetics, it is rather a charge against it, and one conducted by people who would be less at ease to provide a demonstration that I were presenting or someone on CMI were presenting, a case that's so iron clad with ifs and buts it could never in principle be falsified even if false, and to provide a "tertium datur, hoc nempe" to the supposed false dilemma.
In fact, it started out as Nietzsche's charge against clergy over time, and it got this specific name by a Scottish FreeChurch preacher who recommended settling over to the "god of evolution" ...
Logical Fallacies
US Represented, 11 May 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdSB137pFrs
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Is God of the Gaps a Fallacy?
Fallacies Part 1 Informal Fallacies
Jon Miller, 9 May 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJOcRCHLsJA
Fallacies Part 2: More Informal Fallacies
Jon Miller, 15 May 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBb_J92-ctU
Fallacies Part 3: Weak Inductive Arguments
Jon Miller, 21 Aug 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd4Roh_sxfk
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I looked at three of your fallacy videos - just the list of fallacies in the "contents" section, I didn't actually watch any of the videos yet.
I did not find God of the Gaps listed as a fallacy - is it one?
- Jon Miller
- Great point. These videos do not offer a complete list of named fallacies, which would probably number in the hundreds. God of the Gaps probably counts as a type of fallacy. But there is a fine line between a 'fallacy' per se, which tends to be a general type of bad argument, which can be used in a vareity of contexts, and a specific bad argument, which can be defined based on its particular conclusion and premises. God of the Gaps might be more of a specific type of bad argument, rather than a general fallacy. But the distinction between specific arguments and general fallacies probably has a fuzzy boundary (i.e., there is no discrete boundary between the two concepts).
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jon Miller "God of the Gaps might be more of a specific type of bad argument, rather than a general fallacy."
In other words, you would not consider it one of the named fallacies?
Would you like to clarify how it is a bad argument?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jon Miller OK, let me rephrase the question.
A believer in Evolution and no God to guide it, and a Young Earth Creationist (or Old Earth Creationist) come to agree that science at this point has no scenario to offer on how a series of evolving beings, while evolving anatomically from ape to man (and I don't mean from any ape species now extant) could, once a sufficient human anatomy were achieved, start out to reinvent language from ape's c. 500 - max - communications to human language with infinite productivity of statements.
The Evolution believer may have tried some lame excuses like "we can't know in detail, but it principle, it's easy : first man has the apparatus for human language, but hasn't developed it yet, then there comes a situation where inventing language becomes useful, like shouting 'tiger' when a tiger comes, and so language develops, word by word"
And those excuses would have been rightly refuted like - apes have sufficient warning cries to deal with tigers attacking their flock, so, inventing the word "tiger" is no advantage ...
There comes a point where the Evolution believer admits it. Now the Theist will continue "don't you see, with a God who was always able to speak from all eternity, and to create too, God giving man language is the solution" ... and the Atheist will respond "that is the God of the Gaps fallacy! It's like back when one didn't know about electricity, one attributed thunder and lightning to Zeus or Thor, and your argument will look equally ridiculous once science finds out what really happened!"
Does, in this scenario, the Atheist have a point?
Has he detected a real fallacy in the Creationist's argument?
- Jon Miller
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl It seems I may have misunderstood the point of your original question. My apologies if that was the case.
My original answer was about whether God of the Gaps was a broad enough type of argument to count as a 'fallacy' in the usual sense of the term. I focused on the fact that God of the Gaps might be narrow enough as a type of argument that it does not merit the term 'fallacy'. But I did not address the issue of whether God of the Gaps is actually logically problematic. That's a separate question from whether it shoudl be termed a fallacy in the usual (broad) sense and listed alongside other such fallacies (such as Ad Hominem, Ad Ignorantiam, etc.). (As an aside, I am not sure if I even agree with my initial asessment that God of the Gaps might be too narrow to count as a fallacy. It does seem to be a general type of argument, which can be used to try to prove or assert God's existence whenever there is a lack of evidence against God's existence, or whenever there is an explanatory gap in our current scientific understanding.)
God of the Gaps can be a real fallacy in the sense of a bad argument. One version of God of the Gaps--the version used in your example--is the argument that if we currently lack a scientific or other explanation for some fact, we must use God to explain that fact. This is a fallacy, in particular a type of bad inference to the best explanation. If the only reason for claiming that "God caused it" is that we simply lack an alternate explanation, this is not a very strong reason. God might be sufficient to explain something, but in many cases He will not be necessary to explain that thing.
On the other hand, I agree that you have identified a type of argument that might be labeled as a God of the Gaps fallacy by an atheist or skeptic, but which is not actually a bad inference to the best explanation. There could be cases where not only are we lacking a scientific or other explanation for some fact, but where it seems in principle impossible, or at least very unlikely, for there to be an alternate explanation besides "God did it." I'm not sure I agree with your evolution example. There are lots of things about evolution, and about other phenomena studied by science, that we don't currently understand, but which may have scientific or naturalistic explanations that we just haven't figured out.
Yet, I do agree with you in principle, that there could be certain facts which just resist scientific or naturalistic explanation. One example might be the Fine Tuning argument. If it's true that our universe is extremely unlikely to have been brought about based on its universal parameters (energy density, initial quantity of entropy, etc.), then this might provide at least some evidence for the hypothesis that God is the cause. There might be other examples that would be even better. In this case, the theist would be giving an inductively strong (but deductively invalid) argument for God's existence, as a type of inference to the best explanation.
If the atheist or skeptic insists that God could never be the cause of something in principle, then yes, they are the ones guilty of a fallacy. This would be an example of the "Fallacy Fallacy," which means that a person (in this case, the atheist or skeptic) has incorrectly labeled another argument as a fallacy. An atheist or skeptic cannot just assume that God could never be known to be the cause of anything (i.e., that it is logically impossible for God to ever be the best explanation for any fact); that would appear to beg the question against theism.
Rather, the atheist and the theist must take inference to the best explanation arguments for God existence on a case by case basis. At least some of the theist's arguments may indeed commit the God of the Gaps fallacy. But it is at least possible in principle that the theist could point to some fact for which God is indeed the best explanation. And if so, that would be an inductively strong argument for the existence of God.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jon Miller Apologies obviously accepted.
"But I did not address the issue of whether God of the Gaps is actually logically problematic."
Which was obviously what I meant.
"It does seem to be a general type of argument, which can be used to try to prove or assert God's existence whenever there is a lack of evidence against God's existence, or whenever there is an explanatory gap in our current scientific understanding."
1) I wasn't aware of the use "whenever there is a lack of evidence against God" only "whenever there is an explanatory gap in our current scientific understanding."
2) I am somewhat bemused why "our current scientific understanding" should be a kind of gold standard ruling out using God as explanation - would it not be equally appropriate to speak of "atheism of the gaps" in relation to arguments against God from a gap in theological explanations or "science of the gaps" in relation to atheistic explanations not yet disproven by good science?
We are for instance lots further away from explaining language developing from ape communications than Darwin thought he was. Jacques Monod's scenario for new useful genes was refuted about as quickly as it was made, as it involved ignoring how one chromosome from each parent rules out a mutation from each parent combining on same chromosome in same gene.
"One version of God of the Gaps--the version used in your example--is the argument that if we currently lack a scientific or other explanation for some fact, we must use God to explain that fact. This is a fallacy, in particular a type of bad inference to the best explanation. If the only reason for claiming that "God caused it" is that we simply lack an alternate explanation, this is not a very strong reason."
It would be a very weak reason, if we just lacked confirmation between two or three equally plausible explanations, but we do not have even plausible candidates for how one transitions from statement=phoneme to statement > morpheme > phoneme. Or from totally practical and emotive communications (imperatives) to communicating ideas (indicatives, nouns spoken of in absence of objects).
"you have identified a type of argument that might be labeled as a God of the Gaps fallacy by an atheist or skeptic, but which is not actually a bad inference to the best explanation."
Ah, thank you.
"but which may have scientific or naturalistic explanations that we just haven't figured out."
Even in such cases - would "God of the gaps" be a better label than "at the current state of science, only God can have done it"?
A bit like "at the current state of science, we cannot travel to the stars" ...
"At least some of the theist's arguments may indeed commit the God of the Gaps fallacy."
Can you think of an example?
Logical Fallacies
Mometrix Academy, 28 Aug 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IawIjqOJBU8
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Is God of the Gaps a Fallacy?
Extra:
1:18 I disagree on the example "the wind is invisible because I can't see it, and I can't see it because it is invisible" ...
The first "because" is a "because" of proof and proven statement,
The second "because" is a "because" of cause and effect.
So, that would not in fact be either circular proof or circular explanation, since the two directions are two different operations.
Your first example is however a correct example of circular definition.
There is no fallacy that is called "circular reasoning" - there are these three different fallacies, which can be classed as "circular reasoning" .... the latter being a class of fallacies rather than a fallacy itself.
Logical Fallacies
Philosophy Vibe, 29 April 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP5imeWMDVg
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Is God of the Gaps a Fallacy?
Logical Fallacies
Captain Ball 1 CPB1, 22 July 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2pOJJB5LNc
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Is God of the Gaps a Fallacy?
Five Fallacies | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
PBS Idea Channel, 23 Oct. 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qb-h0sXkH4
Even More Fallacies! | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
PBS Idea Channel, 7 Jan. 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybOvddwpJAg
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Both in this and the previous video, I found no specified fallacy named "God of the Gaps" - is God of the Gaps a fallacy?
Related:
Moving the Goal Posts Fallacy | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
PBS Idea Channel, 7 Jan. 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeswYJgf5mM
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- In the discussions around Galileo's book, involving Bellarmine as judge:
1) Bellarmine claimed that if Heliocentrism were true, parallax would be observed, but it isn't;
2) Galileo's response was like, parallax would be observed when (or if) one had better means of observation.
The parallax they were talking of was an even parallax of stars seated in the sphere of fixed stars, which both believed to be the outer rim of the visible universe, visible from earth that is (and both believed Empyraean heaven seated above this sphere). As all stars in Virgo are the same distance from earth (or so they believed), all stars in Virgo would equally spread to a greater sign in March, when Earth was closest to it (on the disputed hypothesis) and all stars in Virgo would equally huddle together around the time when the Sun was in Virgo, when Virgo couldn't be observed.
Even while both believed it possible that single celestial bodies could be moved directly by God, they may have deemed it absurd to make the container rather than the contained the measure of absolute space, and therefore that such an even parallax might prove the annual orbit of Earth (though Bellarmine would probably have argued even this would not be an absolute proof, and therefore not enough to challenge his reading of the Bible, should such observations be made).
Such a parallax has never been observed.
The phenomenon now usually called "parallax" is a phenomenon by Thomas Henderson, Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve, Friedrich Bessel.
If it is parallax, i e, if the variations in relation to annual aberration are due to Earth moving through space, it is anything but the even parallax of an outer container of the universe that Galileo and Bellarmine were discussing. Precisely because, if it is parallactic, it would prove these stars as having very different distances from earth, and therefore, the ones showing the parallax, as not being the outer rim of the visible universe.
So, if the phenomenon observed by Henderson, von Struve and Bessel is used to promote Heliocentrism, like as giving an absolute proof for it, is this moving the goal posts?
[That is what I felt it was, when I became a Geocentric, but that I didn't state in the comment - I posed it to get feedback on my intuition]
No comments:
Post a Comment