god-of-the-gaps. Should we or shouldn't we fiil in the gaps with God?

by KateWild 138 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • MadGiant

    "You are using confirmation bias-MG

    I agree to some extent, some athiests do as well dont they

    Kate xx"

    I have to agree. But the important part is once someone point out that Propaganda Technics are been use, the other part have to correct their line of thinking.



  • konceptual99

    Hi Kate,

    God of the Gaps approach inevitably leads to a less open mind.-K99

    I agree, I think I am being closed minded to an extent in this point of my deprogramming, but who knows what I will think in the future

    Sorry Kate, I was not very clear. I was speaking generally in as much as whilst an individual may progress with their pursuit of knowledge, the majority are more likely to slow down allow their intellecual curiosity be framed by the concept of God having to be involved somewhere.

    I think that you are very much in the same place I was as I awoke to TTATT. To be fair, some people mantain a faith in God and Jesus and I respect that. On a personal level as soon as I deconstructed the 1914, last days eschatology then I found the concept of God being involved less and less logical. I guess that I am still not quite an atheist but I am increasingly left with "you can't (correction) prove God doesn't exist" as the only argument left.

    I have to say I don't know enough about the specific example to comment on the scientific merits of your statement - I will leave that up to Cofty or Cantleave.-K99

    cantleave can talk to me about chemistry at the same level....but cofty goes way over my head with evolution and fossils, he admits to knowing less about chemistry than me, thank you also for being so humble to admit your limits. It is very refreshing and validating for me.

    That's very kind. I know my limits on these things and would probably completely crumble in front of some of the ID specialists but I am trying to increase my knowledge. My problem is I forget alot of the facts. I've read several books by Coyne, Dawkins etc. but keep forgetting many of the examples used. I certainly don't know enough about chemistry to discuss the merits of most of molecular evolutionary biology.

    What I do have however is an inate sense of logic and reason. All the time I was brought up as a Witness I allowed that to be moulded by what I now recognise as cognitive dissonance. I thought I was being the astute one, never climbing on the back of the latest change or drive to increase urgency, playing the game with the Elders to be seen as an asset without over committing to the organisation. In fact I was as deluded as the rest of them.

    When I started waking up I allowed my logic and reason to come to the other conclusion, the conclusion that would normally mean spiritual weakness, the conclusion that opened up more questions that answers - the conclusion not filled by the God of the Gaps. I hope it is not hubris or blind self-confidence that has brought me to where I am now. I hope it is simply allowing myself to trust logic and reason more than the niggling voice of the "wise/mature Christian". I feel like a participant in a management training away day, standing with my back to the group and letting myself fall, confident that the safety net of their arms is there.

    I am confident that the safety net of logic and reason is there. I am sure that even though I feel like I am falling through space sometimes, I will be captured, caught in a web of reason that cannot be broken.

    My suggestion is rather than try and fill the gap, leave it open. Leave your mind open and be comfortable that the gap is there.

  • adamah

    Kate said-

    So you think I am irrational?

    What I think ultimately doesn't matter to you, as only what YOU think counts. And fact is, you've admitted to being irrational by clinging to a "god of the gaps" thinking, which everyone has eloquently explained WHY it is so handicapping as to tell yourself and others that you possess an answer when you don't ("God Dun It!" isn't an answer, but only space-filling silly putty). That's the first step: recognizing and acknowledging the irrational belief.

    NOW, simply try not to use it anymore, as it's irrational: that's the rational thing to do.

    Or DO continue, but don't expect the more rational types to be impressed, justifying it with claiming that it feels good to YOU. That is ultimately a very selfish justification to believe in God (and paradoxically is quite hedonistic, as well, doing something only because it feels good to you, and forget about everybody else who might prefer to believe in things that have evidence to support such beliefs)!

    Kate said-

    Well I suppose I am tenacious, impulsive, and brash in many situations. These are not always bad qualities. I suppose my cult personality is irrational, and maybe I need to do something about that.

    Not in the World of scientific inquiry, if they cannot control those urges and impulses. Most scientists and doctors at least manage to put on the act of having a flat emotionless affect, if it's not really their personality, since those traits are valued. There's a fine-line between 'tenacity' and 'dogmatism', and don't confuse the two.

    But it takes many different types, and there's many believers in science who often manage to 'compartmentalize' their beliefs into separate categories in their brain, i.e. the knowledge they use in their daily career, and the beliefs they resurrect to adopt on Sunday (until they go back in the closet before Monday).

    You are using confirmation bias-MG

    Kate said- I agree to some extent, some athiests do as well dont they

    Of course, "everyone else does it" is an 'appeal to popularity', and would likely be countered by any mother when their kid said it to them with, "If everyone else were jumping off a bridge, would you?"

  • J. Hofer
    J. Hofer

    "If everyone else were jumping off a bridge, would you?"

    which of course is a strawman ;)

  • adamah

    J. Hofer said-

    Adam said- "If everyone else were jumping off a bridge, would you?"

    which of course is a strawman ;)

    Kate's statement was actually a two-fer fallacy, not only fitting the classic example of an 'appeal to popularity', it also tries to justify a questionable practice by pointing the fingers at others (fallacy known as 'tuo quoque').


    Another Logical Fallacy

    Another logical fallacy is called "Tu Quoque" (pronounced "two coke"). It is Latin for "You, too". And I am quite sure that you are all familiar with it, even if you aren't aware of it. The argument tries to deflect opposition by pointing the finger at the opponent. In its most crass form, you'll hear it on the playground. "You're stupid." "Oh, yeah? Well, your mother wears combat boots!" You see, the response doesn't address the claim; it simply points the finger at the opponent. We've heard this argument recently in the debate on torturing Islamic detainees. "It's wrong to torture prisoners." "No it's not! Look at how they treat our people!" It's the "two wrongs make a right" approach ... which is obviously wrong.

    Teenagers seem to come armed with this argument. Mom: "You shouldn't have premarital sex." Daughter: "Did you have premarital sex?" Mom: "Yes." Daughter: "Then who are you to tell me not to?" You see, whether or not Mom ever committed the offense is not relevant to whether or not it is wrong....... Remember my premise: There is little as damaging to the truth as a bad argument offered in its defense."


  • KateWild

    The End of the Thread is Nigh.........But why you all say?

    Should we or shouldn't we fill in the gaps with God?

    One complelling point that someone made on another thread, made me stop dead in my tracks. I can't seem to find it. So if it was you please tell me, I would love to find out who you are.

    If I am going to believe in the god-of-the-gaps.....Who created God? I can't just change my mind at that point and say he is infinate, thats circular reasoning. I have to fill in the gaps with God's God. Well that defies logic too. No one raised this point on this thread. But that's what made me start it in the first place.

    Logic tells me I shouldn't it's not logical, and emotion says I should because it's scary not too. I had the answer before I started the thread....but thanks for joining in guys it's been fun meeting new people and seeing what you all think.

    Take care everyone


    Kate xxx

  • J. Hofer
    J. Hofer

    not believing in a god that hides in gaps isn't all that scary. if (s)he hides so well, maybe (s)he doesn't want to be believed in.

  • tootired2care

    There are many amazing, beautiful and complex things in nature, and in the universe, that we still don't understand, and maybe never will. One thing is clear though, the universe is not a friendly place, the earth has had past extinction events, and nature is full of violence and contradictions. For me, all of the random order just does not track with a benevolent designer. Until I see evidence for such a supreme being, I won't accept that premise. It is scary (and also a little exciting) to realize that we are on our own, and thats why we have to make this life count. Good luck on your journey though.


  • adamah

    J Hofer said-

    not believing in a god that hides in gaps isn't all that scary. if (s)he hides so well, maybe (s)he doesn't want to be believed in.

    If an omniscient God exists, he'd know exactly what kind of evidence I would need in order to be convinced he exists, and would also have the power (AKA omnipotence) to do it.

    While playing "peek-a-boo" was really quite fascinating when I was a two-year-old, I'm not an infant, and an omniscient God should realize that.

    In 2013, it's utterly absurd that some humans want to play peek-a-boo with an imaginary being since it makes them feel good and brings them comfort, and then to expect to be taken seriously by the other adults when they want them to join in on their game....


  • QC

    cofty, cant, Captain O: Einstein most certainly did NOT believe in god.

    Wrong! Einstein didn’t believe in a PERSONAL god, but he did believe there is a god (Spinoza’s God)

    • "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." Einstein
    • "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." —Einstein

    He was NOT an atheist.

    • "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." —Einstein
    • "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.” —Einstein

    cofty, cant, jgnat: Filling in the gaps with "god did it" ends inquiry.

    Silly argument!

    Pagan thinker’s world view felt God is in nature, various aspect of nature represent various Gods (Pantheism). No need to explore or discover.

    Christian thinker’s world view is, God is outside of nature. Christians innate curiosity compels them to explore (like the history of explorers), ‘let’s explore and discover God’s creation handiwork.'

    Entire MODERN SCIENCE, “the scientific revolution…age of enlightenment”, came out of CHRISTIANITY's inquiring minds, thinkers.

    • Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543)
    • Michael Servetus (1511–1553)
    • Ignazio Danti (1536–1586)
    • Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)
    • René Descartes (1596–1650)
    • Juan Lobkowitz (1606–1682)
    • John Wallis (1616–1703)
    • Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)
    • Nicolas Steno (1638–1686)
    • Isaac Newton (1643–172)
    • Stephen Hales (1677–1761)
    • Colin Maclaurin (1698–1746)
    • Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778)
    • Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794)
    • Luigi Galvani (1737–1798)
    • Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718–1799)
    • Leonhard Euler (1707–1783)
    • Alessandro Volta (1745–1827)
    • Andre Marie Ampere (1775–1836)
    • Louis Pasteur (1822–1895)
    • Guglielmo Marconi (1874-1937)
    • Georges Lemaître (1894–1966)

    (Just to name a few)

Share this