I certainly don’t understand the electrical impulses in human brains. But that is because I have never take a course in neuroscience. So of course it seems mysterious to me. But I suspect that for trained neuroscientists, it isn’t nearly as mysterious.
The “God of the gaps” concept is not only lazy, but it is arrogant. It presumes that just because the common man doesn’t know shit from shinola about a particular subject, that means mankind is collectively clueless. It also confuses the absence of a scientific consensus for the lack of understanding. I am willing to bet that someone out there has developed a pretty good conceptual model of consciousness. But that doesn’t mean that model has been embraced by his or her peers yet. It takes a very long time for scientific breakthroughs to be born.
They are clearly not the same thing, but stuff that I think most people would include in a definition of consciousness, such as how we react to things, still have physical causes. And of course drugs make us unconscious.
It’s fully understood. It’s just a matter that most people don’t like the idea that they’re complex pattern recognition machines and insist that there must be more to it than that.
As someone who has received multiple general anesthetics, and had consciousness disappear in an instant no matter how hard I tried to not let it go, I am quite convinced that it is a physical phenomenon.
P.S. For this thread only, I’ll show my sig.
“We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance” - John Archibald Wheeler
I agree that consciousness, particularly the witness and qualia, are particularly difficult problems to explain through biology. And I can even imagine some interesting phenomenon of reality with some of the qualities we ascribe to God. But…
Even in the case that there are some things which can only be explained in a manner we would currently call supernatural or magic, even then, that doesn’t automatically make it God. There are all sorts of interesting models for reality beyond science, but not related to Yahweh stories.
(see “If aliens, then Jesus”)
On the other side of that, you could also say that in a sense, God is doing everything, even the things we have explanations for, just that those things we understand better. There doesn’t have to be a conflict.
Further, even if God is at work a little or a lot, there’s good reason to believe that it is much more mysterious and interesting than the caricature people fight over from any particular religion.
I am stating the fallacy of God in the gaps. The entire concept is fundamentally flawed.
Yes God is the reason for everything, but that in itself doesn’t explain anything. So using God in the gaps is as attempt to explain things is not valid. The flaw is trying to say that God does it is a explanation of how it happens, which it never was.
For instance lightning to primitive people was done by God, but it doesn’t go into how God does it - so no gap is filled in. Even if that God had a lightning staff made of material from the sun and forged in lava, again no explanation of to how that works. However often a reason as to why something happens (as opposed to how) is sometimes given.
Which that ,why did God do this, goes into the belief that everything happens for a reason. Things understandable such as lightning today and things that we can’t explain yet. The question as to why we noticed it, why it happened at a particular time are questions that are in the realm of God. How it happens are mysteries we are uncovering. These are 2 separate things.
The “god of the gaps” is nothing more than an observation of how religions deals with the advancement of science.
a word game.
no one uses it as an attempt to explain anything. As I say, it is an observation of what the religious do.
of course it was, of course it is. Religions from the beginning of time have done precisely that, when they could get away with it of course.
nonsense. Gods were used as the cause and the mechanism.
“why” is not always a question that has any meaning. Why lightning happens is purely “how” lightning happens. There is no need for “why”
no, it is a word game. What you have said here is precisely the god of the gaps. You are saying that whatever cannot yet be understood is in the realm of the gods. However much we explain through natural and rational means it will always leave an explanatory layer below that which you will then ascribe to gods. Sorry, you don’t get to play that way. It is utterly meaningless.
I have seen this argument before, especially in relation to evolution with the “missing link” argument. Of course many missing links have been discovered and although it adds additional links, the links are narrower. But in the case of evolution, it was used as an argument to dismiss evolution all together, and still is.
As an atheist, I never concluded the unknown, including gaps, equated to any gods. Just simply unknown.
Perhaps you have not been keeping up with the latest scientific research of the brain, but you should know that there has been huge amount of knowledge about how the brain works, so much so that we have already started developing technology that works by direct interaction with the brain. Pioneered mainly for handicapped, but it won’t be long before we’ll be seeing brain interactive tech available for the general public. As for the knowledge about the brain. There are new discoveries published every month. It’s not going to be long before we have a full understanding of the brain. And that includes the knowledge of how the brain makes us sentient.
So what made you conclude that the knowledge about the brain has not changed in a thousand years? A simple google search would have given you loads of information, including the very fascinating knowledge on how the brain evolved.
Did you choose to be ignorant on this subject? Because this is really my main concern. It seems like many religious people chose to be ignorant on subjects that may question the existance of some supreme being. To me it can be a dangerous thing. Denying human responsibility of climate change for example. Scientific fact purposely ignored by TV evangelists and evangelical politicians. I’ve heard the argument that it’s God’s doing and he somehow has a plan. And then when a horribly deadly hurricane occurs, they blame the sinful gays or transexuals. What nonsense.
Or what about denying their children medical cures or vaccines because God would take care of them, only for their kids to die. Granted, there appears to be some who chose to be ignorant for profit, especially in relation to climate change.
It’s not a crime to be ignorant on any specific subject matter, but to choose to be ignorant is beyond my understanding and hey it’s your problem as long as you don’t harm anyone else.
For those being in a position of power choose to be ignorant in order to block action to counter real crisis, that is criminal in my opinion.
The “God of the gaps” argument refers to any argument of the form, “We don’t know what causes X, therefore god causes it”.
The reason it’s fallacious is pretty simple if you just barely rephrase it:
“I don’t know what causes X, therefore Y causes X.”
It’s internally contradictory. If you don’t know what causes X, you cannot then turn around and say, “therefore, I know what causes X”. No, not even in a Sherlockian “if we exclude all impossible options what remains must be true” sense.
I honestly don’t think that the religious actually start with the concept of “I don’t know” More often it is expressed as
“everything is caused by Y unless you can show otherwise” With “Y” itself never actually defined, a causal mechanism never expressed and “Y” re-introduced the moment the explanatory power of our actual knowledge reaches its current limits.