The Explanatory Impotence of Goddidit

[bigfield]

One often hears some variation of the following argument from theists:

1. Atheists cannot explain X.
2. My religion says that God did X, therefore my religion is better at explaining the universe than science.
3. Therefore my religion is true.

(where X is some natural phenomenon).

The universal problem with this argument is that the explanation offered by religion is devoid of explanatory power. When science asks why, science is really asking for an explanation of how that thing came to be; it's a request for details regarding the cause.

For example:

Question: "Why do things fall to the ground?"

A useful answer might explain that:
1. Things with mass are attracted to each other
2. The strength of this attractive force varies: it is equal to the product of the two object's masses divided by the square of the distance between them.
3. Therefore the Earth and objects above it are pulled towards one another and we perceive this as objects falling.
4. The Earth barely moves because it is so massive and has a lot of inertia, so the tiny attractive force between the falling object and the Earth barely nudges the Earth.

This explanation has labels such as gravity, inertia, force, mass etc. but these labels are only as useful as the descriptions that they stand for.

On the other hand, Goddidit is a completely useless answer, because it consists of nothing but an empty label. It tells us that an agent has acted to make things fall to the ground but does not tell us how that agent acted. And without the how, it is not an explanation.

 

[James Brown]

One atheist explained something similar to me.

When a scientist or an expert explains something, he decreases the complexity by a factor. "Why does this happen?" "Because of X, Y, and Z."

When discussing a situation with her peers, the complexity might be decreased by only one level. When teaching a graduate course, it might be decreased by two levels. A decrease of three levels might be needed for a pop-sci magazine article, and four levels might be needed when speaking to her kid's class during "Take Your Parent to School" day.

But when someone explains something by invoking a deity, he increases the complexity. "Why does this happen? "Because God made it so." No matter what phenomenon in the universe is being discussed, a creative God responsible for the phenomenon must be more complex by definition.

But that's a terrible way to explain something, and it fails even if we're discussing non-supernatural events. "How does the rocket go to Mars?" "The rocket scientist makes it go there." That's not an explanation; that's an increase in complexity, and thus is not compelling.

 

[AJ113]

What I can't understand is why they do it in the first place. History shows repeatedly that when a goddidit explanation is inserted into a knowledge gap, that gap is closed by knowledge at some point, thus disproving the deity and discrediting its followers. So it is inevitable that current goddidit explanations will go the same way. Why don't they see that?

 

[Elixir]

What I can't understand is why they do it in the first place. History shows repeatedly that when a goddidit explanation is inserted into a knowledge gap, that gap is closed by knowledge at some point, thus disproving the deity and discrediting its followers. So it is inevitable that current goddidit explanations will go the same way. Why don't they see that?

Same reason that they don't see that people worship thousands of gods, and the odds that they happened to select the only one that exists are long, even if it is assumed that a god exists.
They are in desperate need of a father figure, and what could be better than one that is omniscient and onmipotent?
It is useful to remember that one cannot use logic to disabuse someone of a position at which they did not arrive by logic.

 

[abaddon]

I think it's more complex than needing a father figure or fearing death. Those are part of it, but there's a bigger picture to theistic religion. And here's my hypothesis about it.

Christians cling to a personal god because he’s both fact and value in one. God is one being that creates the universe AND creates the moral order. So he’s the ultimate explanation for reality and also the ultimate justification for moral behavior united in one person. Theists can make it out to be just a "first cause" or other purely metaphysical argument when addressing the one aspect (cosmology). But note that when they do that, they usually hint or say outright that it's a first step to what they want to argue later: that their "prime mover" is actually a personal God and a very specific one (because everything being consciously intended is necessary to their values and sense of meaning).

It's why they tend to conflate the Why's and How's. The universe should provide the meaning, they don't want to be left to find it alone. And understandably. Modern culture gives no good alternative to their unified though ancient and obsolete mythos.

 

[Lion IRC]

What I can't understand is why they do it in the first place.

Me either.
It's a deplorable excuse for an argument.

Thankfully it's seldom used.
Very few theists actually claim that... "There's a gap therefore this proves God."

Usually it's the non-theist saying..."we don't know" (the gap) and the theist saying...I think God did it. And the theist then immediately gets shouted down for opening their mouth.

The GOTG accusation from counter-apologists is typically just sour grapes and resentment in my opinion.

And I don't know why it is that the person who has no idea is somehow in any position to tell others that their ideas aren't welcome or plausible. How is "I don't know" necessarily better than "I think I do know" ?

History shows repeatedly that when a goddidit explanation is inserted into a knowledge gap, that gap is closed by knowledge at some point, thus disproving the deity and discrediting its followers...

I think science is actually discovering more gaps than it is eliminating.

 

[bigfield]

And I don't know why it is that the person who has no idea is somehow in any position to tell others that their ideas aren't welcome or plausible. How is "I don't know" necessarily better than "I think I do know" ?

Your non-explanation is unwelcome because it is worse than useless; it introduces added complexity and explains nothing.

History shows repeatedly that when a goddidit explanation is inserted into a knowledge gap, that gap is closed by knowledge at some point, thus disproving the deity and discrediting its followers...

I think science is actually discovering more gaps than it is eliminating.

As Michael Shermer has pointed out, every time a new fossil discovery bisects a gap in the fossil record, it creates two new gaps!

 

[abaddon]

Me either.
It's a deplorable excuse for an argument.

Thankfully it's seldom used.
Very few theists actually claim that... "There's a gap therefore this proves God.”

Phenomena explained naturalistically don’t support a case for the supernatural very well. Pointing at lightning and saying “There is a supernatural being or force that makes the lightning happen” is a weakly supported claim because it has a stronger contender: a natural explanation. To keep supporting theism in the face of ever-shrinking places to fit it into, theists make a stink about what science doesn’t know to make resorting to the supernatural seem less far-fetched and even necessary. But if it's possible to make a strong case for the supernatural explanation, it requires focusing on the positives of that case and not on the negatives of the contender explanations or lack thereof. "You don't have an answer, so mine is the main contender" is a weak argument.

It’s very common that creationists do this. That you don’t have awareness that you do it is a problem for you to solve.

Usually it's the non-theist saying..."we don't know" (the gap) and the theist saying...I think God did it. And the theist then immediately gets shouted down for opening their mouth.

Actually what happens is the theist is asked to show some good reasons or evidence for what he “thinks”, if that’s the right word for it, and the response is bare assertions and evasive tactics like shifting the burden of proof, claiming to not care if anyone believes him, claiming to ‘just know’ because of some alleged experience unavailable to others. We ask for reason and evidence and just get belief and bitching instead. (And for weeks on end).

The GOTG accusation from counter-apologists is typically just sour grapes and resentment in my opinion.

The GOTG is accurately descriptive so your opinion is wrong.

And I don't know why it is that the person who has no idea is somehow in any position to tell others that their ideas aren't welcome or plausible.

All it takes to be in that position is a modicum of ability at skeptical reasoning, it doesn't require a belief or knowledge about origins to oppose against your belief about origins to know what you say is implausible.

How is "I don't know" necessarily better than "I think I do know" ?

Because if you “think” you do know and then make a display of how you actually don’t know, then you’re kidding yourself. Skip the “atheists don’t know” stuff and just support your claims if you feel a need to make them. Show God actually explains anything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And I don't know why it is that the person who has no idea is somehow in any position to tell others that their ideas aren't welcome or plausible. How is "I don't know" necessarily better than "I think I do know" ?

Because it appears to us that the difference is between:
"there isn't sufficient evidence to say we know, therefore we don't know"
and
"there isn't sufficient evidence to say we know, therefore we know it's my god"
It's a non sequitur.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

God just tastes too good

The magic spaceman crowd already has magic and woo as part of their ontology. It's not like they're about to question something that they cherish and is comfortable and never give a second thought. It's not like they're thinking about it either, it's emotional. To someone like me this thing they call a god is a the biggest gap imaginable in knowledge, regardless how comforting. It's something I want to know more about. But nothing more can be known that isn't more of the same woo.

The classic example is asking why the moon goes through phases. The classic no-more-information answer is that it's in the nature of the moon to go through phases.

So it is in the nature of the woo crowd to find answers when there is no more knowledge. To me it is like trying to explain the value of nutrition to someone who doesn't get it. They'll come back with response after response about their illness and injuries and how the doctors can't fix them when all the while the problem is pepsi and donuts instead of peas and potatoes. God just tastes too good.

 

[James Brown]

In (I believe) Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, he tells an anecdote of being driven to a conference by a cab driver, and when the driver learned Sagan was a scientist, the driver started asking him questions about science. He was a science enthusiast!

Except, what the driver asked about was actually pseudo-science, like BigFoot, and Atlantis, and UFOs. Sagan observed that as he debunked idea after idea that lit the cab driver's buttons, the driver started becoming more and more subdued, until finally his enthusiasm had completely drained away.

Never mind that true science can be exciting. I admit that stories about UFOs visiting Earth can be more interesting than, say, gravitational waves being discovered. I'll wager that cab driver continues to believe in pseudo-science because, quite frankly, it hold more appeal to him.

 

[Kharakov]

The cab driver's loss of enthusiasm was more due to learning that a lot of what he accepted as true, and told people at parties... was false. It's like a creationist's loss of faith when they actually read the bible and pay attention to the world around them, instead of having a hustler spoon feed them predigested ideas that avoid the "hard" parts of the bible.

It eats away at their false self confidence (pride)....

 

[AJ113]

...Thankfully it's seldom used.
Very few theists actually claim that... "There's a gap therefore this proves God."

I don't know what world you live in but I hear it all the time. How could you possibly know what 'very few theists actually claim'?

 

[bilby]

...Thankfully it's seldom used.
Very few theists actually claim that... "There's a gap therefore this proves God."

I don't know what world you live in but I hear it all the time. How could you possibly know what 'very few theists actually claim'?

...and even if it were true, how would the fact that they are few in number in any way affect the unrelated fact that they are wrong?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wasn't that Bill O'Reilly's argument? 'You can't explain the tide, therefore God.'

 

[Malintent]

What I can't understand is why they do it in the first place. History shows repeatedly that when a goddidit explanation is inserted into a knowledge gap, that gap is closed by knowledge at some point, thus disproving the deity and discrediting its followers. So it is inevitable that current goddidit explanations will go the same way. Why don't they see that?

simple, imo... fear of the unknown. "I don't know" is a very difficult (and very mature) thing to say.
Also, fear of looking stupid (or fear of not being in compliance with the local culture).. people are not quick to admit lack of knowledge, especially for deceivingly simple questions. four little words "why are we here", seems such a simple question.. and what simpleton might possibly not know the answer to such a simple question!?

Culturally, emotionally, etc.. people seem to rather be wrong (and never admit it) than admit ignorance (and someday learn it).

 

[remez]

1. Atheists cannot explain X.
2. My religion says that God did X, therefore my religion is better at explaining the universe than science.
3. Therefore my religion is true.

(where X is some natural phenomenon).

One adjustment......The subject in premise 1 should be more global than just atheists. Beyond that.......
I concur, any theist advancing such an argument would arguably be committing a fallacy.

But you didn't present an example of a theist advancing such an argument. You simply asserted that you often hear them.

Can you provide an example of a current theistic gotg argument?
And defend your position.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

1. Atheists cannot explain X.
2. My religion says that God did X, therefore my religion is better at explaining the universe than science.
3. Therefore my religion is true.

(where X is some natural phenomenon).

One adjustment......The subject in premise 1 should be more global than just atheists. Beyond that.......
I concur, any theist advancing such an argument would arguably be committing a fallacy.

But you didn't present an example of a theist advancing such an argument. You simply asserted that you often hear them.

Can you provide an example of a current theistic gotg argument?
And defend your position.

A very common such argument is the argument from morality. Evolution cannot explain human morality, therefore God.

Google evolution cannot explain human morality for various examples of Christian websites that peddle this claim.

 

[bigfield]

1. Atheists cannot explain X.
2. My religion says that God did X, therefore my religion is better at explaining the universe than science.
3. Therefore my religion is true.

(where X is some natural phenomenon).

One adjustment......The subject in premise 1 should be more global than just atheists. Beyond that.......
I concur, any theist advancing such an argument would arguably be committing a fallacy.

Premise #1 is fine as it is. It could be more general but the God of the Gaps argument is often directed at atheists rather than theists from other religions, because other theists have their own god to wedge into the gaps.

But you didn't present an example of a theist advancing such an argument. You simply asserted that you often hear them.

Can you provide an example of a current theistic gotg argument?
And defend your position.

"Tide goes in, tide goes out" by Bill O'Reilly:

[YOUTUBE]wb3AFMe2OQY[/YOUTUBE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3AFMe2OQY

 

[Valjean]

Theists seem to mistake an assertion of agency for "explanation." Science explores the actual mechanics of phenomena.
Most of the he alternative religious explanations I hear amount to nothing more than magic.