Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 05-02-2003, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel, in part

God-of-the-gaps is when faced with a question with an unknown or challenging answer, the explanation "God-did-it" is substituted and considered to be the complete explanation.
The obvious parallel is Atheism-of-the-gaps: Atheists, when doing the typical assertions about the universe being uncaused etc, are faced with nasty questions about "why was the universe the way it is and not slightly different", or "what is the ultimate explanation for everything" etc that annoying theists come up with, respond with equivalent atheism-of-the-gaps statements "that question has no answer",

More correctly: "that question is not meaningful, except under theist assumptions

Quote:

"there is no ultimate explanation". (As opposed to "I don't know, but I believe there is an answer") Where the theists plug the holes with God, the Atheists plug the holes with non-answers.

Of course, God is a non-answer as well, unless you explain his existence and motivations to create the universe "the way it is and not slightly different" Otherwise he is an answer on the same level as "my cat created the universe last Thursday" (and I can give you independent evidence of my cat).

I think you just replace a difficult problem with an even more difficult one.

Regards,
HRG.

Starboy · 05-02-2003, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wade-w
Starboy, Tercel:

Please don't derail this thread any further. Either take it up in PM, or start another thread.

wade-w, where are you when people derail my threads? Just a question.

Starboy

Sabine Grant · 05-02-2003, 03:17 PM

Bonjour Wade-W... keeping a lid on that " pertain " habit...

Sabine Grant · 05-02-2003, 03:19 PM

Starboy... peek a boo... what do you think... can miracles be in the eye of the beholder? my previous post is a bit more explicit.

Starboy · 05-02-2003, 04:15 PM

The answer to your question is yes, miracles are very much in the eye of the beholder. It is the beholder that decides to accept supernatural explanations.

Starboy

Sabine Grant · 05-03-2003, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
The answer to your question is yes, miracles are very much in the eye of the beholder. It is the beholder that decides to accept supernatural explanations.

Starboy

What I brought up in my previous thread was that there may not be any need to look for supernatural explanations or examine the impact of natural physical laws to percieve something as "miraculous". Rather a sense of " awe"( my quote). We either can percieve and believe that nature itself has formed the amazing variety of designs on butterfly wings, specific scents for flowers, happened to have maintained our life supporting environment without allowing to even unbalance the oscillation of our planet etc etc... or we can be overwhelmed by a sense of awe that something miraculous has happened.
It is in that sense that I approached the notion of the eye of the beholder. My approach of what could be miraculous is( I admit to it) influenced by pantheism.

Starboy · 05-03-2003, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
What I brought up in my previous thread was that there may not be any need to look for supernatural explanations or examine the impact of natural physical laws to percieve something as "miraculous". Rather a sense of " awe"( my quote). We either can percieve and believe that nature itself has formed the amazing variety of designs on butterfly wings, specific scents for flowers, happened to have maintained our life supporting environment without allowing to even unbalance the oscillation of our planet etc etc... or we can be overwhelmed by a sense of awe that something miraculous has happened.
It is in that sense that I approached the notion of the eye of the beholder. My approach of what could be miraculous is( I admit to it) influenced by pantheism.

Hi Sabine,

I guess it depends on what you mean by the word miracle.

Quote:

From Websters
Main Entry: mir�a�cle
Pronunciation: 'mir-i-k&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
Date: 12th century
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

It sounds like you use 2. So from that point of view just about everything in our lives has been a miracle if you take into account that we are born in almost complete ignorance. I think though that the OP was using the term as it is defined in 1 and 3. In that case it very much depends on which explanation of any given phenomena you accept. The word awe is another religiously charged word:

Quote:

From Websters:
Main Entry: 1awe
Pronunciation: 'o
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse agi; akin to Old English ege awe, Greek achos pain
Date: 13th century
1 : an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime <stood in awe of the king> <regard nature's wonders with awe>
2 archaic a : DREAD, TERROR b : the power to inspire dread

When the universe emotionally takes me, I prefer to use the word amazing or wonderful. I think those words more accurately reflect my feelings. I think you should read more on natural history. A more accurate understanding of our relationship with our environment would be that it is we that change to adapt to it and that it has not been all that constant in the past. There is no reason to expect that it will be all that constant in the future. The history of the universe is one long story of change.

Starboy

AndresDeLaHoz · 05-03-2003, 08:54 AM

Atheism of the gaps?!?

Could someone bother to explain to me what this absolutely idiotic concept entails? I mean, I surely haven't seen anyone say "we don't know the explanation, so god sure doesn't exist".

Tercel · 05-03-2003, 03:53 PM

I explained atheism of the gaps in my post of May 2, 2003 11:29 AM in this thread.

Starboy · 05-03-2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel
I explained atheism of the gaps in my post of May 2, 2003 11:29 AM in this thread.

Ahhhhh. The supernatural non-existent explanation of atheism-of-the-gaps. Yes, very religious of you.

Starboy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-02-2003, 03:17 PM	#83
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Bonjour Wade-W... keeping a lid on that " pertain " habit...

05-02-2003, 03:19 PM	#84
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Starboy... peek a boo... what do you think... can miracles be in the eye of the beholder? my previous post is a bit more explicit.

05-02-2003, 04:15 PM	#85
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	The answer to your question is yes, miracles are very much in the eye of the beholder. It is the beholder that decides to accept supernatural explanations. Starboy

05-03-2003, 08:54 AM	#88
AndresDeLaHoz Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 567	Atheism of the gaps?!? Could someone bother to explain to me what this absolutely idiotic concept entails? I mean, I surely haven't seen anyone say "we don't know the explanation, so god sure doesn't exist".

05-03-2003, 03:53 PM	#89
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	I explained atheism of the gaps in my post of May 2, 2003 11:29 AM in this thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.