Monton on God-of-the-gaps Arguments
by BilboReading Bradley Monton's book, Seeking God in Science; an Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, was a fascinating, thought-provoking experience. I recommend it highly for ID proponents and critics alike. There's much you'll like and dislike, regardless of which side of the debate you're on.
Since the objection that ID is just a God-of-the-gaps argument keeps coming up, I thought I would share Monton's thoughts about it. I'm copyng from his book without his permission. I hope he doesn't mind. I hope it will inspire sales. Professor Monton, if you object, just let me know, and I'll delete this thread.
"First, despite how it's typically portrayed in the anti-intelligent design literature, I maintain that Behe's irreducible complexity argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument at all. Behe is not saying that we don't know (or can't know) how irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum could plausibly arise naturalistically. Instead, Behe is giving positive reasons that the sequence of events that would have to happen for irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum to arise via an undesigned process is an improbable sequence, and hence the design hypothesis should be taken seriously….
"Here's the second problem …of maligning the intelligent design arguments by calling them God-of-the-gap arguments. Just because gaps in the past were filled in with further naturalistic scientific investigation, it doesn't follow that every gap in the future will be similarly filled in. [Denis] Alexander's argument to the contrary is a relatively weak inductive argument. To see this, consider an analogous argument. If one looks at the history of science, one sees that all scientific theories before the ones that we currently favor have been shown to be false. Does it follow that the scientific theories we currently favor will be shown to be false too? While some philosophers have endorsed this argument (called 'the pessimistic induction argument'), most think that the argument is not that strong. The reason the argument is not that strong is that we could well have good reason to think that our currently favored theories are true, reasons that didn't exist for the past false theories. Just as that's a reasonable response to give to the pessimistic induction argument, so Behe could have the resources to give an analogous reasonable response to Alexander. Behe could say that he has good reason to think that the gaps he highlights won't be filled in naturalistically, reasons that didn't exist for past filled God-of-the-gaps arguments.
"Here's the third and final problem with Alexander's critique of intelligent design arguments by way of critiquing God-of-the-gaps arguments. Alexander says that the history of science is full of examples where there was a seemingly insoluble gap in our understanding, but where that gap was filled in naturalistically by further scientific investigation. While this is true, what Alexander doesn't point out is that it's also the case that the history of science is full of seemingly insoluble gaps in our understanding that have never been filled in naturalistically. For example, we don't know what the nature of consciousness is, or how conscious mental activity arises out of physical brain activity. We don't know why the universe exists — we don't know why there is something rather than nothing. We don't know why the universe has three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. We don't know what the nature of mass is. We don't know what the universe is made of (most of it seems to be 'dark matter,' but we don't know what dark matter is). We don't have a single fundamental theory of physics (the two theories we do have, general relativity and quantum theory, are incompatible). The list could go on, but I've said enough to make my point. One can't just say: all gaps in the past have been naturalistically filled in, so future gaps will be naturalistically filled in as well, because in fact there are some persistent gaps that have never been naturalistically filled in. Thus, it's reasonable to be cautious in assuming that any new gap we discover will be naturalistically filled in as well. (p.115-116)
My only comment is that Behe and other ID proponents are careful to point out that they think the evidence for intelligent design is insufficient to prove that the designer is God. So at most, they are presenting an intelligence-of-the-gaps argument.
September 4th, 2009 at 5:24 am
Hi Bilbo
Wiki suggests that the god-of-the-gaps argument historically has been used by Christians against other Christians, and that the claim is that the gaps will continue to shrink, not that they will disappear altogether. The argument is strongly connected to the argument from ignorance; e.g., there are still plenty of things science does not explain, ID assumes those can be attributed to an intelligent designer because we know no better.
This really is the classic argument from ignorance. There is no positive evidence for the design hypothesis, only the claim that the current theories cannot explain something. Get the positive evidence for your hypothesis are we will take it seriously.
That is correct; it is an inductive argument. However, that inductive argument is positive evidence (if weak evidence) for a naturalistic explanation. Compare to ID which has no positive evidence. The issue here is what the default position is. If we do not know, then the position is that we do not know. IDists claim that if we do not know we should assume design.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 4, 2009 @ 5:24 am
September 4th, 2009 at 7:50 am
These arguments are pretty poorly thought out. Take the second one.
This is called erecting a straw man.
The straw man can't even stand on its own: of course disproved theories were false. But how about picking on someone your own size, Dr. Monton? There are theories that have withstood the test of time. Newtonian mechanics has been a valid theory for more than 300 years. Geometrical optics has been around even longer. They have not been "shown to be false:" they are perfectly valid in their respective domains of applicability. (For example, the science of optical rays works perfectly well on scales greater than the wavelength of light.)
And what are those reasons, Dr. Monton? Perhaps because those theories are falsifiable and have been tested in numerous experiments? How would you like scientists to test a god-of-the-gap argument? Ask the Bearded Dude?
Dr. Monton, I am sure that, as a philosopher of science, you are aware of the Bohr-van Leeuwen theorem and Loschmidt's paradox. The former showed with mathematical rigor that magnetic phenomena (e.g. ferromagnetism) cannot be described in the framework of classical physics. The latter showed the inability of classical mechanics alone to explain irreversible phenomena (v.g. viscous friction) observed in fluids. These were watertight arguments. Did science give up and lose? Nope. Physicists had to build entirely new of quantum mechanics and statistical physics to solve these conundrums, but the gaps were filled. The arguments of Behe and Dembski are nowhere near these old gems in either rigor or significance. Don't bank on them.
I might go over the third argument later.
Comment by olegt — September 4, 2009 @ 7:50 am
September 4th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Physical theories can be created for phenomenon that are repeatable. God-of-the gap arguments are appropriate if a phenomenon is not repeatable.
If there are indeed unrepeatable phenomenon in reality, then how can it be amenable to science? I would suppose this is possible only via inference that an unrepeatable event happened. The closest such inference I can think of for an unrepeatable phenomenon is the "Big Bang" or origin of the universe.
I think the origin-of-life is an unrepeatable phenomenon, unless of course we repeat its origin in the lab.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 4, 2009 @ 8:29 am
September 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Salvador
You seem to be using "God-of-the gap arguments" as a euphemism for argument from ignorance, and then recommending that IDists employ the argument from ignorance (relabelled as God-of-the-gaps). That is rather different to what Monton is discussing, as he is objecting to how anti-IDists might use a "God-of-the-gaps argument"
My view is that if we have no evidence, then we do not know.
Either people come up with hypothese with supporting evidence or we do not know. Sorry, you do not get to insert your pet theory as the default.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 4, 2009 @ 10:02 am
September 4th, 2009 at 10:55 am
However, the argument from ignorance cuts both ways. For example, just because a theist cannot prove that God created life, it does not follow that there must be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.
Do you apply that standard equally to naturalistic explanations?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 4, 2009 @ 10:55 am
September 4th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Physicist FJ Belinfante basically classified the sum total of all physical phenomenon that was not deterministic rooted as God.
Whether this great "unknown" has a personal characters is the subject of religious faith. There will always be a "gap" based on math and physics.
1. incompletness
2. uncertainty principles
Whether God resides in that gap is a philosophical question.
With respect to ID, I don't believe knowledge chemistry can supply an adequate explanation for the emergence of life. Chemistry can explain and predict the formation of certain chemical reactions given initial conditions, but it may not necessarily explain the reasons for the existence of initial conditions.
I don't think chemstry can explain the origin of initial conditions that led to the first life. I don't think the origin of life was a typical event. What are "typical" chemical events in plausible environments?
1. racemization of amino acid polymers
2. de-amidation of amino acids
etc.
OOL researchers seem to be attempting to show that the emergence of life was not as atypical as it appears to ID proponents. I don't think they will succeed.
If OOL researchers succeed in showing that OOL is a reasonably typical event, then I will no longer be an ID proponent.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 4, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Current approaches embody arguments from ignorance. They take the form of phenomenon x does not fit within any paradigm solution we currently have and an intelligent inference is against the rules. So have faith that one day all will be known as a result of science.
Comment by Bradford — September 4, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Thank you for reminding us all about this, since it's absolutely true. No, the support for a naturalistic explanation isn't that we have no other explanation; the support for a naturalistic explanation is that every single other explanation we have for anything is either naturalistic or "humans", and we know we can rule out humans.
Comment by don provan — September 4, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
don provan:
Why aren't humans naturalistic?
Comment by CJYman — September 4, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
The gap.
The god.
Comment by don provan — September 4, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I think they're naturalistic, but around here they are considered to be in the special, unnatural class called "intelligent agents".
Comment by don provan — September 4, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Don Provan,
If "intelligent agents" are "naturalistic" by your view, then I suppose a designer would be a naturalistic explanation as well, eh? I mean, we know humans certainly exist, they certainly design things – what makes ID explanations 'not naturalist' according to you?
Comment by nullasalus — September 4, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
As I said in my comment, I think that at most ID proponents can be accused of offering an intelligence-of-the-gaps argument. However, they rarely stop short at just saying, "Because naturalistic, non-intelligent causes are too improbable." They go on to point out positive evidence. For example, Behe defines design as "the purposeful arrangement of parts," and then observes how the parts of irreducibly complex systems appear to be purposefully arranged. Mike Gene takes it further, and looks for signs of rationality and foresight. When we combine this with the apparent improbability of whatever biological feature is being discussed, we occasionally have what seems to me to be a substantial argument for design, especially when using abductive — argument to the best explanation — reasoning.
"Naturalistic" has two connotations, meaning either "non-intelligent," or "non-supernaturalistic." Whatever strength the inductive argument has — "all scientific explanations have been naturalistic, therefore the scientific explanation that the OOL and irreducible complexity will also be naturalistic" — is bypassed, since ID proponents aren't trying to show that the explanation is supernatural. Just that it's intelligent.
And once we realize that the inductive argument is only a weak one, we won't have to worry whether the intelligence involved in natural or supernatural.
Comment by Bilbo — September 4, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Rather than wait around for natural selection to wipe us out, humans have some ability to change. We make purposeful choices in our own self interest. Our bodies, without our conscious awareness, have some of that same ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Beavers and the bodies of beavers also have some ability to adapt. Single celled organisms all show some limited ability to achieve purposeful adaptations. Even cultured cells display some ability to respond. Responsive, purposeful change is what distinguishes life from non life. Most of us do not regard our own creative free choice as supernatural. Why should creative free choice an aspect of all living systems be considered supernatural?
No one has even hinted as to how natural selection might create complex, biological structures out of a series of improbable genetic accidents. Most traits involve hundreds, sometimes thousands of genes, all of which would have to undergo the appropriate accidental change at the appropriate time. And even if that were to happen, how would all those genes know what they were supposed to accomplish? It seems obvious to me that some organizing intelligence plays a role in the process.
Why are the Darwinists so obsessed with “natural selection” as the designer, when purposeful, responsive adaptation is a more plausible alternative? RM&NS is the only explanation that proposes a purely mechanical explanation of life, the only explanation that denies any possible participation of an organizing intelligence. Such is our limited understanding of creative free choice, we can not rule out participation of some deity. Some have stated that RM&NS allows materialists to become emotionally fulfilled atheists. Is the emotional fulfilment of atheists so fragile that they would feel threatened unless they can rule out all possibility of the existence of deities.
bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — September 4, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Bilbo,
One criticism I'd have of the inductive argument as you put it is that it seems tautological. Can science ever have an explanation that isn't naturalistic? For many, those are the ground rules of science – non-naturalistic explanations are never scientific. Anything not currently explained by science is given an 'unknown' placeholder, even if a non-naturalistic explanation is possible. And naturalistic explanations can be consistent with intelligent explanations, as you point out. I'd add that even a supernatural intelligence can make use of a naturalistic operation, or that naturalistic operations can be that intelligence operating itself (panentheism, etc.)
I think one argument Monton could use here is that, whatever one thinks of 'natural' intelligence (humans, etc), such agents definitely exist. I think the distinction between "nature" and "intelligence" had more substance back when nature was some near-Godlike thing in and of itself that we could only speculate about in large part. Nowadays? We know so much more, we harness quite a lot, and the sky seems to be the limit in that regard. (I sometimes wonder if the Kurzweil and the transhumanists in general ever stop to think that, if their faith in the power of even -natural- intelligence is well-founded, have they ever stopped to think 'Did an intelligence of some kind precede this universe to begin with'?)
Comment by nullasalus — September 4, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I am open to the idea implicitly demanded by ID theory that there is an absolute division between natural forces and things which can create CSI. I am not myself convinced that that division actually exists, but it's impossible to discuss ID without assuming it does.
I was thinking of this distinction when I put humans outside "naturalistic" in my original comment. But when CJYman questioned the division, I reflected my doubts about it. Does that clear it all up for you?
Comment by don provan — September 4, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Hello everybody
I don't like the "naturalistic" (nor the non-naturalistic obviously) concept too much, since it is too vague. Science can only have explanations that can be investigated by making observations. Since our arsenal of methods to observe the ever smaller and the ever larger is ever expanding, we can't say in practice what's "naturalistic" or not.
A non-naturalistic explanation is just fine. But in order to be useful the explanation should make verifiable predictions that the current paradigm does not make. I can't think of any examples, but maybe you can?
Of course this is possible in principle, but how do you know if it's true?
Comment by JarrodF — September 4, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
JarrodF,
I agree. It seems like naturalism used to mean materialism. Then materialism came under attack due to (quantum) physics discoveries, and blurred into physicalism (Hempel's dilemma). Of course, now we have guys like David Chalmers flat out rejecting materialism and physicalism.. but he'd say he's still a naturalist. And then there's panpsychists like Galen Strawson. Consciousness inheres in everything, even (apparently) electrons! Dualism all the way down! What does Strawson call his position? Real materialism.
"Current paradigm" meaning what? Naturalism/non-naturalism?
Good question. I'm not an ID proponent, though I have serious sympathies with the ID position in general – if you're asking me for a scientific ID hypothesis, you've got the wrong guy.
Comment by nullasalus — September 4, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Don Provan,
Not really. Let me put it to you another way, with the 'naturalistic' question aside. Is there anything an intelligent agent can do that 'blind nature' (in your view) can't? If yes, what and why? If no, what's the difference between intelligent agents and nature again?
Comment by nullasalus — September 4, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
[...] Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. « Monton on God-of-the-gaps Arguments [...]
Pingback by Another Look - Telic Thoughts — September 4, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
If we assume, for the purposes of discussion, that all intelligent agents are the product of natural forces, then that would make all intelligent agents examples of natural forces.
In ID theory, the difference is that nature cannot produce CSI. In the English language, the distinction is between nature and humans, and there's no implication that there's a difference in what they can do.
Comment by don provan — September 4, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Don Provan,
Yep, it would.
Not asking about ID theory. Asking about DP theory. What's the difference between 'nature did' and 'an intelligent agent' did, if humans are natural beings and all human intelligence/effects are natural forces?
Edit: All intelligence/intelligent agents/effects. Not just human, of course.
Comment by nullasalus — September 4, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
September 5th, 2009 at 4:04 am
I thought I answered that. In normal, non-ID conversations, the disvision is between human activities and all other events. Human actions are considered artificial, and anything else is considered natural. There's also the supernatural, but that's a different topic.
Why is this so important to you? I feel like we're just mincing words to no purpose just because I was trying to be agreeable to CJYman.
Comment by don provan — September 5, 2009 @ 4:04 am
September 5th, 2009 at 5:30 am
I'm afraid I am not familiar with those names (of philosophers I presume) you mention. Still, it seems that materialism is just as ill-defined as naturalism, and I wouldn't use the term as a means to classify someone's ideas.
I do realize, however, that many philosophers would be out of business if they can no longer advance their careers by inventing new "isms" that aren't of much use except to themselves and their colleagues. Don't get me wrong – I am all for supporting philosophers, seeing as their research can stimulate interesting discussion and doesn't cost the taxpayer very much at all (salary + new PC every 3 years + travel to conferences + ???)
Oops, it looks as if this comment would fit better in the navel-gazing thread. Sorry about that.
nullasalus, you asked:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the current scientific consensus. I'm fine with ID claims that they can answer questions that the "current paradigm" answers with "dunno", but unless IDers put the answers to the test (meaning predicting new observations) my shoulders enter shrugging mode.
Comment by JarrodF — September 5, 2009 @ 5:30 am
September 5th, 2009 at 6:05 am
Can I again suggest trying real and imaginary as a substitute for natural and super- or non-natural.
Thus, scientifically speaking, a human being (detectable, observable and measurable) is real and an "Intelligent Designer or Agent" (not detectable, etc) is imaginary.
Avoids the natural/artificial semantic trap.
Comment by Alan Fox — September 5, 2009 @ 6:05 am
September 5th, 2009 at 8:46 am
I can imagine something that is real which makes your semantics ambiguous.
Comment by Bradford — September 5, 2009 @ 8:46 am
September 5th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Bradford claims
The process of imagining is real. A thought is real. What is it that you find ambiguous ?
Comment by Alan Fox — September 5, 2009 @ 11:10 am
September 5th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I can imagine something that is real which makes your semantics ambiguous.
You had witten:
If imagining is real then you have no way to distinguish real from imaginary and your word choice lacks a useful contrast.
Comment by Bradford — September 5, 2009 @ 11:24 am
September 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
The process of imagining is real, not necessarily what you imagine!
Comment by Alan Fox — September 5, 2009 @ 11:27 am
September 5th, 2009 at 11:31 am
If imagining is real then you have no way to distinguish real from imaginary and your word choice lacks a useful contrast.
The point is one can imagine real things which makes mitigates the importance of real and imagined real in the context of this thread.
Comment by Bradford — September 5, 2009 @ 11:31 am
September 5th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Remember I defined real as amenable to scientific study and imaginary as not. A thought is a real process because thoughts can be observed indirectly to some extent.
Give me an example of something that is real and also imaginary. that would defeat my suggestion very effectively.
Comment by Alan Fox — September 5, 2009 @ 11:38 am
September 5th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
There are still problems with this. As Olegt pointed out in the other thread atoms were once thought of as imaginary. Same with ET. Atoms are now considered real. ET may go either way depending on developments. What is amenable to scientific study today may not have been so 50 years ago. 50 years from now things will be open to study that we can only imagine today. Technology plays a big role in what we are able to study.
Comment by Bradford — September 5, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
September 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Don't disagree with this. Once you find a way to observe a phenomenon, it will become a real phenomenon.
Comment by Alan Fox — September 5, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Took me a while to get back here, sorry.
JAD
Absolutely. Let us have the evidence!
Yes.
Sal
He might as well define his chair as God, and then, given that his chair exists, God must exist.
Back in the real world, there are certain qualities that most people assign to God (eg creator of the universe, intelligent, miracle worker). His chair has none of these properties. I see no reason to suppose that "the sum total of all physical phenomenon that was not deterministic rooted" should have these properties.
The closely related argument from personal incredulity.
As far as I know, racemisation of amino acid polymers is a pretty slow process (it has been considered for dating ancient samples, suggesting a half-life of at the very least thousands of years). Deamidation proceeds fastest at high pH. I would guess that the prebiotic sea had a low pH, due to the higher conentration of CO2. Do you have any references to suggest otherwise?
Bradford
That is not an argument from ignorance. That is research, i.e., trying to get rid of the ignorance. Of course that starts with something we do not know.
However, archaeologists and forensic scientists will tell you that an intelligent inference is certainly allowed.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 7, 2009 @ 8:18 am
September 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Pixie-
What is the evidence for the non-telic position?
According to Zachriel that position can't even be tested.
Comment by ID guy — September 7, 2009 @ 9:58 am
September 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
don provan:
That "idea" is not what ID posits.
The debate is about undirected vs directed.
Comment by ID guy — September 7, 2009 @ 10:00 am
September 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am
ID guy
Do you meand for OoL? Here is an interesting web page:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 7, 2009 @ 10:58 am
September 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I didn't claim it was what ID posits. I said it was demanded by ID. It is a necessary conclusion based on the ID arguments. If there isn't an absolute division between natural forces and things which can create CSI, then natural forces such as evolution and abiogenesis can create CSI, and ID fails, ipso facto.
Comment by don provan — September 7, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
September 12th, 2009 at 9:03 am
The first part is certainly true. But clearly Darwinian evolution fails as well. What direct evidence do we have of only random mutation and natural selection, as defined by someone like Dawkins? If nature can plan ahead and forsee and select on future function, it seems to me that the Behes of the world have a better insight than the Dawkins of the world,
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 12, 2009 @ 9:03 am