Seems that way to me, too, dear brother in Christ!
So it seems it might be helpful to straighten out this language of "the God of the Gaps." That is, what are the people who use this term actually saying?
It seems pretty clear to me that there are no "gaps" in the world; the only "gaps" that exist are gaps in human knowledge about the world and its processes.
But "science" reassures us that, if only the rest of us are patient enough, they will deliver the goods; i.e., they will fill in all the gaps via the scientific method given enough time — a method which excludes any "metaphysical," i.e. "immaterial", let alone "theological" data in principle.
They keep alive in their hearts (it seems) Baron Laplace's hopeless abstraction and reduction of a living universe down to a mechanistic, "clockwork" one.
The problem is, if this expectation is unwarranted to begin with, then any scientific method built on it would also be "wrong" — not to mention that any scientific findings based on this premise would likely be "wrong," too — or at the very least, incomplete.
To which I would say: There's nothing wrong with science's "method" — as long as its application is restricted to its own proper sphere of competence.
Which has obviously proved impressive, at the "material" level.
Or more "materially" to the present discussion, at the observational level.
Everything in the scientific method "supervenes" not so much on the "physical," as on the "observable."
This means that everything within the purview of the scientific method extends to "objects" that are amenable to sense perception — and only to such objects. (I hear Francis Bacon — the driver of this new Novum Organum — had precisely this result in mind.)
Now the problem with that, as Kant pointed out, is that human observers have no assurance that what is presented to human sense perception and understood by such means is an exhaustive description of the object of intention's actual reality as a "thing in itself." We never directly see the thing in itself, only its phenomenal projection to the human mind via sense perception alone. This is what Kant means, when he speaks of the phenomenon (what can be registered by sense perception, as technologically aided if/as possible) and the noumenon — the fundamental state of being of the object that is perfectly unvisualizable and therefore unanalyzable, thus unknown to the human mind — precisely because its manifest being in its totality is irreducible to direct sense perception.
In short, the scientific method is not the magic key that turns all (epistemological) locks....
I'll stop for now. Though good grief, I could go on....
Thank you ever so much for your excellent essay/post, and your kind words, dear brother MNR!
As did B.F. Skinner in his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity in which he basically denies free will, saying instead that we are automatons simply reacting biologically to the instructions of our genes.
This means that everything within the purview of the scientific method extends to "objects" that are amenable to sense perception — and only to such objects. (I hear Francis Bacon — the driver of this new Novum Organum — had precisely this result in mind.)
Being unencumbered by intellectual instruction, I came upon this idea independently (I think) quite awhile back. However, my thinking at the time took another road. I concluded that since we can only know things through ourselves, then our universe and our perceptions are unique to each individual. Therefore, to me, the entire universe is my universe. The universe does not exist without me, to me. You and the others are merely players in my universe. Of course the same is true of you and everyone else, that we are all players in the others' universes.
Yet, just as there is much more to Scripture than words, this concept can deal with a lot of subjects. As Master of my universe I can control my perceptions and reactions, if I keep that in mind. I can invite God into my universe and grant control to Him. I can exclude God and be a tyrant or a wimp, in my universe. I can treat others as I wish and deal with the consequences. After all, I am only affecting My universe. If you and others don't like what I do you can shun me or do other things to me but it really only affects my universe, to me. I can also dismiss harmful opinions and information from my universe and not be harmed by them. (I am not saying we can exclude all harmful opinions and information and not be harmed by them. I mean selected opinions and information.) Your universe is affected by what you do to me.
Of course, the more beneficial choice for us all is for me to choose to be loving, kind, and truthful, like all good Boy Scouts. It greatly improves my universe and it makes perceptions and reactions much more predictable and harmonious. It also makes me a pleasant participant in your universe.
This concept also cements the idea that all of us are innately self-centered. Being limited to contact with the external through our senses, we can't escape that. It just is.
R. Buckminster Fuller, the ultimate scientific thinker, said free enterprise has the unique ability to transform the selfish desires of each individual into a good for the whole of society. That is a positive culmination of this concept.
Still, we must keep in mind that this is how we interact with the material world or, as you correctly describe it, the observable world. The key to all this is the internal world of abstractions. It is from these that the perceptions are evaluated to produce the reactions. I don't see how science and the scientific method can deal with that other than by going the B.F. Skinner route. I suppose psychology is considered a science, although an imperfect one, but how do you use the scientific method in psychology? Perhaps it is considered a soft science versus the hard sciences like chemistry and physics.
exDem Mom, in your discussion with GourmetDan, you cite and link to Stephen Hawking and his description of scientific theory. He says, paraphrasing, that you take a few provable facts and from them induce a theory about a larger body of facts. He also says that as long as experiments continue to produce the same results then the theory is intact, even though you can not be certain that the next repetition will give you the same results. He concludes that if the next experiment gives a contradictory result, that one result disproves the theory. He says that is the nature of inductive reasoning.
That may be helpful to you as a teacher of scientific methods and theories but I don't see how that supports evolution. Please tell me the few provable facts that justify the leap in logic which concludes in evolution. In light of the millions of years in which evolution supposedly reigned, tell me how you repeat the experiment endless times in support of that theory. When we know today that cross species breeding is rare in the wild how can one logically conclude the everything - plants, mammals, insects, birds, retiles, etc., came from a single source Common Ancestry and progressed through Natural Selection to the vast number of species we have today.
The giraffe is often used as an example of Survival of the Fittest, a key to Darwin's theory. Supposedly, the giraffe survived because a mutation in giraffe linage caused a strain of animals with long legs and necks and those long legs and necks allowed it to eat the leaves from the tall trees on the savanna and survive. Yet, I have seen pictures and tapes of those giraffes stretching out those long legs in order to reach the ground and eat grass. It seems they are a hindrance there. Also, where is the evidence of the their ancestors, the short neck/legged giraffe from which they mutated?
I am of the opinion that evolution is promulgated as the defining description of the universe, earth, and its inhabitants in order to exclude God and spirituality from the discussion. Simply offering Intelligent Design, even though suggested by Einstein and others, is strictly forbidden. If it is "Science" then it is true and superior to all other concepts. By the way, how are those experiments to determine whether electrons are waves or particles coming along?
I'll stop for now. Though good grief, I could go on....
I wish you would. I love these threads. They are very helpful to me.
This means that everything within the purview of the scientific method extends to "objects" that are amenable to sense perception — and only to such objects. (I hear Francis Bacon — the driver of this new Novum Organum — had precisely this result in mind.)
Now the problem with that, as Kant pointed out, is that human observers have no assurance that what is presented to human sense perception and understood by such means is an exhaustive description of the object of intention's actual reality as a "thing in itself." We never directly see the thing in itself, only its phenomenal projection to the human mind via sense perception alone. This is what Kant means, when he speaks of the phenomenon (what can be registered by sense perception, as technologically aided if/as possible) and the noumenon — the fundamental state of being of the object that is perfectly unvisualizable and therefore unanalyzable, thus unknown to the human mind — precisely because its manifest being in its totality is irreducible to direct sense perception.
Thank you so much for your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!