The march of science
continues apace, ever pushing indeterminism into the dustbin of history. Traditional
philosophy, developed during the feudal period, required frequent modifications
as the outside world rushed in with its contradictory facts. Each ferment
resulted in a philosophical split between conservatives and liberals.
Fundamentalists persevered in cloisters and rural areas hidden from the
radically opposed proclamations of science. Urban dwellers, forced to confront those
new ideas about the external world, prepared the reforms, becoming religious
moderates, if not agnostics and atheists.
We all need to get
along to survive. Compromises were handed out all around. While evolution could
be denied by fundamentalists, it had to be accepted by moderates who had to
deal closely with it. Scientific and religious liberals agreed that the
mechanism of evolution was neo-Darwinism, the proposition that genes and
natural selection were required for evolution. The compromise eventually
brought acceptance even by the Pope. Of course, readers know that the real,
universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental
determinism (UD), the fact that what happens to a portion of the universe is
equally dependent on the infinite matter in motion within and without.
Now to the “god of the gaps”…
Readers also should know the Third
Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to
know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything).
Stemming from our assumption of infinity, we realize that there always
will be a gap in our scientific knowledge. As in the neo-Darwinism example
above, this gap enables indeterminists to hypothesize immaterial “causes” for
effects not currently explained by science. So, when cosmogony (cosmology based
on the assumption that the universe had a beginning ) is finally defeated, we
will be left with an infinite universe in which there will be an infinite
number of facts and explanations still to be engendered. The fact that we can
never eliminate this inevitable gap means that uneducated indeterminists are
forever free to hypothesize a god, however tiny, to fit the resulting gap.
Thus, while Infinite Universe Theory will apply yet another blow to
indeterminism, it will not be decisive. As is well-known, there is a sucker
(baby) born every second. Babies are born as neutral combatants in the
determinism-indeterminism conflict. They slowly become determinists as they interact
with the macrocosm (external world), becoming educated to its neomechanistic
ways. To the degree that this education remains insufficient, they will be imbued
with indeterministic assumptions that harken back to feudalistic times.
Many of the motivations for the “god of the gaps”
argument are standard theology:
1. A god provides, not only an explanation for
things and events, it gives purpose to life. Thus, the purpose of a bird’s nest
is to raise its young. Humans build homes for the same purpose. They also follow
religious edicts to build communal homes on Earth and to prepare for a home in an
imagined heaven.
2. The realization that we will never know
everything is as humbling as the universe is large. This necessary humility may
be used by indeterminists to rightly confront classical mechanism, which was
based on finite universal causality (the assumption that there
could be a finite number of mechanical causes for an effect).
3. Indeterminists have great difficulty
understanding the phenomena they attribute to “spirituality.” This is because
they do not adhere to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there
is no matter without motion). Thus, when a person dies, indeterminists see the
motionless body as devoid of the “spirit,” which has magically left for parts
unknown. This particular form of the “god of the gaps” may be seen in
regressive physics wherever matterless motion is claimed. Einstein’s “immaterial
gravitational and magnetic fields” are classic examples.
4. Indeterministic lessons held for long
periods do not suddenly evaporate. Being
forever in retreat, religion grasps onto any gap in knowledge in its attempts
to survive. That is why coincidences play a significant part in such belief
systems. We will never discover all the factors involved in a particular coincidence,
often placing us in awe of the result. Survivors may ascribe supernatural
powers to their coincidental success, while victims can say nothing about their
coincidental demise.
5. At this time, the premier gap argument
involves relativity and Big Bang Theory. Just as Einstein’s immaterial fields
have no material causes, the Big Bang has no material cause. These regressions in
physical theory leave a huge, desperate gap into which indeterminists are free
to insert their favorite gods. The removal of that gap
will be a great achievement, even though we know that the “god of the gaps”
will never die.
6 comments:
Friend me on facebook, Kenny Damaschke is my name and I love your brain!
Beautifully written! The battle between Materialists and Idealists, Determinists and Indeterminists, et cetera, will be waged for eternity.
GB writes: "... the premier gap argument involves relativity and Big Bang Theory."
I don't see that in theological apologetics, maybe because the BBT is a mystical proposition.
What I do see is a claimed "gap" of knowledge about human action: what is the "ultimate cause" of people being good or bad? That's blended with the assertion that atheism is as much a "belief system" as theism, with no objective justification for naturalistic claims. To some degree, for "progressive physics", that's actually true.
I don’t know if you regard it as apologetics, but it seems clear that the Big Bang Theory is now part of Catholic dogma (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-meaning-of-curiosity-in.html). Philosophically, it fits right in with the cosmogony promulgated in Genesis.
As I have explained many times, science does not use the terms “good” and “bad.” Those are subjective terms defined by each of us for our own ends (e.g., to the rabbit, the fox is bad; to the fox, the rabbit is good). The causes of “good” and “bad” behavior are infinitely complicated, but none of them are grounds for the “Myth of Exceptionalism” (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2015/02/critique-of-tsw-part-27a-myth-of.html). It is true that atheism and theism are opposing belief systems. Because the universe is infinite, neither can be proven to be completely true, although theism is falsified every time a prayer remains unanswered. Your statement that there is “no objective justification for naturalistic claims” is clearly false. Without those claims, science would be impossible.
Doesn't the big bang theory contradict the law of conservation of energy? We got all our energy from nothing, a singularity, which existed outside time and space. Some also predict heat death of the universe, which would also contradict the law as well.
Dear Anon:
You are correct. That was the loaded question I wanted to ask Hawking at his UC Berkeley talk on 20070313. Unfortunately, he was not taking questions from the audience. The Big Bang Theory is a clear violation of the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), which is otherwise known as the First Law of Thermodynamics. There will be no “heat death” of the universe, as that would be a violation of the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). "Heat death" is a misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. See my paper on “Resolution of the SLT-order paradox.”
Post a Comment