The Atheism of the Gaps

First Things ^ | Stephen M. Barr

[VadeRetro]

But his [Penrose's] materialist assumptions have painted him into a very tight corner.

. . .

Penrose is all the more effective in overthrowing materialism because that is not his aim.

. . .

There are several misconceptions here [in Penrose's statements on "mysticism"] . . .

We're seeing the usual hijacking of a more-or-less sober scientist by an "anti-materialist" whose axe grinds loudly throughout the article. Barr loves Penrose for giving him some good ammo against that evil, materialism. Then he gets mad at him for not going far enough, for not rejecting materialism himself.

Yes, Barr is a Physicist at U. Delaware. He also writes articles about the anthropic principle proving the universe was made for us. That doesn't wash with me either but it's another story.

[medved]

Good article and an interesting piece of work on the part of Penrose. Every once in a while one of the ivory tower types actually earns his keep.

Moreover, if you think the human mind differs from a computer now, you ought to check into the extent to which it differed from a computer 4000 years ago. The section on ancient anomalies and catastrophism on my www site, Bearfabrique goes into this somewhat. The starting point for all such discussions, of course, is Julian Jaynes' "Origins of Consciousness".

[Aquinasfan]

The idea of "thinking machines" is a category error. End of story.

[dubyagee]

In this view, religion has been fighting a long rear-guard action against the advance of knowledge, taking refuge in the unknown and the obscure by positing a "God of the gaps," and, as the gaps in our rational explanation of the universe disappear, God will be driven out. This is indeed one of the main motivations for a certain kind of scientist who supposes that when the job of Science is done there will be no room left for the "superstition" of religious belief.

I personally am not worshiping "a God of the Gaps". I think the fact that there exist laws in which this universe operates, is incontrovertible PROOF that God exists. Where there exist laws, there must be something "creating" those laws. My problem is not with the LAWS of science, or with scientists in general, but with those who choose humanism or objectivism as religion, and then deny that it is such. To back up their religion, they feel they must deny God, and in denying God, they feel they must belittle those who choose to believe God. Therefore evolution is the basis for their argument. All those who believe otherwise are intellectually challenged. Or so they believe.

[RussP]

Good point. Too many scientists who "discover" laws of nature seem to think they invented those laws themselves.

We may be very good at describing nature, but we cannot explain why nature is the way it is.

[WRhine]

Religion supplies irrational explanations where rational ones are lacking; as lightning, for example, is still thought by primitive people to be the raging of the gods.

Well I got this far into the article. I wish I had more time to read it. It was interesting in some respects despite its noticeable defensive tone. Now as for the above, I'd like to ask the Creationists lurking here to explain how using Religion to supply irrational explanations for the very real and documented evidence supporting Evolution is any different than primitive people using their religious beliefs to explain away lightning as the raging of the gods? Or do most Creationists still believe that lightning is the raging of gods? And if not, what does that tell you?

[the808bass]

I hope everyone will actually READ the entire piece before flame-broiling me.

I've often thought that shopping at pseudo-trendy stores in malls and a belief in the Almighty are mutually exclusive. I guess this article proves it.

Someone had to say it...

[the808bass]

And if not, what does that tell you?

That religious people made the mistake of only assigning the unexplainable and the mysterious to the work of a god, gods or God. As the unexplained grew smaller, the space for God in our lives grew correspondingly smaller. There is no natural.

[dubyagee]

Or do most Creationists still believe that lightning is the raging of gods? And if not, what does that tell you?

See post#24. I personally do not know any creationists who believe the above statement. I find it thrilling when science "discovers new laws". Where there are laws there must be a "law-maker".

[WRhine]

That religious people made the mistake of only assigning the unexplainable and the mysterious to the work of a god, gods or God. As the unexplained grew smaller, the space for God in our lives grew correspondingly smaller. There is no natural.

No, there will ALWAYS be the unexplained ALWAYS. For this not to be true then man would logically have to know everything, which of course will never happen. The more we learn about all branches of science, the more we realize what we don't know. Knowledge is infinite, so is God.

[dubyagee]

That religious people made the mistake of only assigning the unexplainable and the mysterious to the work of a god, gods or God. As the unexplained grew smaller, the space for God in our lives grew correspondingly smaller. There is no natural.

Explaining how something works, only explains how what is behind that something operates.

[WRhine]

See post#24. I personally do not know any creationists who believe the above statement. I find it thrilling when science "discovers new laws". Where there are laws there must be a "law-maker".

Or a lawbreaker. I wouldn't hold any physics law too closely including the speed of light. Remember, just 200 years ago electricity was a rudimentary concept. Nuclear science did not even exist 70 years ago. And 500 years ago many people thought the world was flat... Makes one wonder what we will know 500 years from now. And mathematics is much like computers in that the answers are only as good as the data and assumptions.

[beckett]

Penrose takes neural networks into account, of course. You have not understood the argument Barr and Penrose are making if you think otherwise. Gödel's theorem plays exactly the same role in a neural network as it does in a simple algorithm.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[steve-b]

Now suppose that there could be a computer program that could perform all the mental feats of which a man is capable. (In fact, such a program must be possible if each of us is in fact a computer.) Given sufficient time to study the structure of that program, a human mathematician (or group of mathematicians) could construct a "Godel proposition" for it, namely a proposition that could not be proven by the program but that was nevertheless true, and - here is the crux of the matter - which could be seen to be true by the human mathematician using a form of reasoning not allowed for in the program.

Contradictory premeses lead to a contradictory result. Well, duh.

[steve-b]

The idea of "thinking machines" is a category error. End of story.

Is this statement supposed to mean something, or is it a variation on sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly?

[Junior]

Bump.

[Junior]

Plus ça change ...

[Phaedrus]

Bump for an excellent article -- alternate title: "Materialism on the Run".

[Phaedrus]

The intangibility of meaning, indeed of information, is lost on the Materialists.