I’m fine with that. The issue is about the “precise details of how” he specifies. I do not want to move far past what we can know for certain here. At least not without very strong reasoning.
1 Like
This is an official protest. In your effort to avoid “moving past what we can know”, you construct sentences that sound like you are dismissing things you don’t intend to dismiss.
Sometimes you just have to take the time to craft some specific qualifiers. How would I know what you mean by your words, when you don’t provide an example of what we Know we Know… and what we Know we Don’t Know?
You avoid this gritty exercise far too frequently for the good of your own project.
1 Like
Don’t knock yerself on that, George - I introduced the word from the early scientists’ use of it for special providence.
2 Likes
Food for thought, or folly for derision? Or, simply a representation that we’re just down to arguing about how much versus how little? Since we know that God created the natural world by more than one discernible set of processes, and perhaps some indiscernible, scientifically, why is the charge of “god of the gaps” even considered logically coherent? If abiogenesis or the question of human consciousness cannot be settled by reference to properties of matter acting alone, then why can’t we admit that there’s a basis for his argument?
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/in-defense-of-theistic-evolution-denis-lamoureux-rewrites-history/
2 Likes
I did my own piece on the God of the Gaps fallacy (ie, the fallacy that the God of the Gaps fallacy is common) back in 2015 here.
So few of the accusers actually think through what they mean by it. It’s just one of those damning labels like “Fundamentalist” of “Creationist.”
Here’s a decent follow up from the same group: https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/heretic-is-for-the-id-critic-or-the-curious-reader-in-your-life/