Comment by notahacker
2 years ago
The idea that if something wasn't explicable in terms of contemporary science it must be evidence of a role for divine fiat was around (and lambasted even by fellow theists) decades before the New Atheists turned up. It's also implicit in the argument I'm replying to.
The fact that other arguments exist for religious belief systems (though attempting to deduce the necessity of an unchanging omni-being from the observation "there is change" sounds like it'd be a stretch that makes Anselm's Ontological Argument seem respectable) doesn't alter the frequency with which "contemporary science can't explain this stuff ergo the explanation must be divine" arguments are implicitly or explicitly made. Or indeed the tendency of longstanding religious beliefs to have to drop axioms once considered fundamental enough to execute dissenters for in the face of overwhelming evidence. None of which has anything to do with quantum physics, which no religion that I'm aware of has anything to say on the matter.
"If something isn't explicable in terms of current science, it means God must be doing it" is undoubtedly a ridiculous argument. We agree there. But the assumption behind this argument is "God is a hypothesis on a par with weather patterns or germs". The new atheists share the assumption, but from it draw the conclusion "if something isn't explicable in terms of current science, it is nonetheless explicable in principle in scientific terms". Examples of this are trivial to find in their works, including the two titles I mention above. But as I explained, this assumes what it's trying to prove: that rational explanation and scientific hypothesis are one and the same. So both the religious and atheist versions of the 'god of the gaps' argument share the same assumption.
Now I have no idea which religious thinkers are pushing this absurdity, at least not today. I'm not really interested, because I know that the failure of a weak argument for a particular claim does not undermine that claim. But I do know that the new atheists bang this drum repeatedly, loudly and excitedly. It's a big part of their argument, and is very often repeated online.
Have I fairly stated their argument? Am I fair to say that the argument is circular?
> though attempting to deduce the necessity of an unchanging omni-being from the observation "there is change" sounds like it'd be a stretch that makes Anselm's Ontological Argument seem respectable
What research have you done on this? What is your understanding of the argument, and where are its weaknesses?