"God of the Gaps"

[fantastical]

explains the concept of God based on a god filling in the missing links, or gaps, between what we do not understand or know. Evolution before its theory was explained by the concept of a god. When an American theologian in the middle of the 20th century proclaimed that "God is Dead," he was referring to this notion. People could make a conjuncture that soon science will replace all concepts of god, or the filling in of missing links with scientific knowledge. If you visualise this concept as lying on a continuum with its missing parts getting filled in by scientific inquiry throughout mankind thus far, and approaching its infinity through progress, two things can happen.

[fantastical]

one: science replaces theology, Fact replaces God, experimentation replaces religion.

or two: theology becomes science, God becomes Fact, and experimentation becomes the new religion.

See what I'm saying? Given the whole evolution vs creation debate, I think they're the same damn thing. God is the process of knowledge. When "god created us from his image," in actuallity, he created "us" from "him." God is Evolution, He is everything that we know of in the cosmos. He is the universe. When the Big Bang exploded, He exploded.

[Calvesy]

You're right, Fantastical. The God theory will one day be seen as an aberration by the mainstream as it is today by us enlightened few.
A clash of cultures between free spirits and indoctrinated zealots has already become the battlefield of this century. Unfortunately capitalist democracies have yet to evolve a culture of which puritans are genuinely jealous - dangerous science, alcoholic broken families, the cult of the minor celebrity, advertising encouraging materialism, entertainment glorifying violence, male egos and unsafe sex. When our military industrial complexes attempt to export this 'civilisation' without even a plan, it is no surprise that they are unsuccessful.
Maybe the Chinese atheists will make the global breakthrough as their economy dominates. It'll be good to see the back of the WASPs who've been running the show the past millennium!

[johnny5]

was the philosopher not german ? Nietzsche ?

[fantastical]

you may be right, actually I think you are. In the middle of the 20th century though, the cover of TIME magazine stated this assertion, and sparked a bunch of new questions, so maybe I assumed the claim is based on an American journalist, when it was probably that the journalist got to idea from Nietzsche.

[ronniemonda9]

Good post, but 'No'. Science and knowledge cannot be used interchangeably. Scientists tend to think so, but they are wrong (speaking as one myself). Science is however much broader and more powerful than most religious minds tend to conceive it.

[mibn2cweus]

Fantasy and reality do not mix. Fantasy can only be made reality through reasoned thinking and carefully conceived implementation.
'God' is not the creator of anything except confusion. 'God' is the creation of those whose purpose is not to inform but to deceive.
Theologies only concern is to destroy science and all else which facilitates human knowledge and understanding.
Religion has no stake in human success; its function is to quell human desire and satisfaction.

You will find almost invariably that philosophers who (philosophies which) preach some version of societal or otherworldly supremacy or dominance over the individual, seek to subvert the capacity of the human mind to perceive or grasp reality. The obliteration of human kind is their real purpose and goal. If this isn�t the epitome of pure evil on Earth, I don�t know what is.

As for 'God' of the gaps; think of 'God' as wedge driven between us and reason by those who have contempt for humanities struggle to find meaning, purpose and joy here in this life and on this Earth.

[ronniemonda9]

Reality as known by the human mind, is itself a creation of the human mind. Blue, for example, is only blue because my mind makes it so for me. Blue things aren't 'blue'.

[giggles7]

sorry to be the blonde of the moment but was reading through some answers find it fascinating is there work areas related to these theorys like philosophy

[mibn2cweus]

Reality, as I use the term, is that stuff out there; that stuff that does not respond to our hopes, fears or dreams of what it might be, but simply is whatever it is.

Knowledge is not created by our mind; it is observed (through sensory perception) from out there in reality land by our mind. But before we can use it effectively we must understand it, causally.

Our hopes, fears and dreams are what we create in our minds and these can only become real if we make it happen, by physically manipulating that stuff out there in reality land. This is where knowledge comes in real handy.

We use this step by step process every day, often without conscious awareness of it. But our confidence in our ability to be successful will ultimately depend on our understanding of these internal processes and there intimate relationship to external reality; especially if we are to counter the attacks against human knowledge by those who prefer criticizing human progress to contributing to it.

[mibn2cweus]

giggles7, Not sure I understand you question, but if your interested in a book on philosophy I recommend, �Philosophy, Who Needs It� by Ayn Rand.

[honkytonkman]

Thing about the 'God' question that intrigues me... Even if we find the scientific answers to everything in the universe, some people will always say that the 'God put the universe there'. To me the problem lies in that science doesn't recognise anything before the 'Big Bang', as before then nothing at all existed and so gives scope for people to say that God created the Big Bang or put in place the conditions for it to happen, i.e. the moment He/She created life. I don't know how that conundrum could be solved.

[mibn2cweus]

honkytonkman, Interesting idea but I don�t know that it would make a difference either way, unless their trying to tell us that everything was predestined and preordained in which case there�s not a dam thing we can do about anything anyway. It's a moot point which means that if it's were true than there's no point in considering it and this alone makes it ridiculously absurd. Their just trying to pretend they know who started everything when the only reasonable conclusion is that only a mind with a body attached can create anything, the rest is all cause and effect. But while you�re thinking about that take a look at what�s going on right now under our very noses.

[mibn2cweus]

Sorry, I just can not let this go on any longer! Not because it has gone on long enough, but because it has gone on for far too long!

[�Blue, for example, is only blue because my mind makes it so for me. Blue things aren't 'blue'.�]

If you can turn blue objects to green or red just by thinking than you are more than a magician, your mind has powers beyond all comprehension. Blue things are blue because this is an attribute of the object which we perceive and all the wishful thinking to the contrary will not change a blue object to red or green any more than hoping and praying will turn a meter into a mile, a gram into a ton or a banana into an orange.
Some people, not everyone fortunately, are telling us that science tells them that colour does not exist, that it is a trick of the mind that deceives us about the true nature of reality. If this is true than we are all in big trouble because science is not only our greatest resource for separating fact from fiction but is entrusted with control of some of the most dangerous and powerful forces known in the history of humankind.

[mibn2cweus]

Who�s coming up with all these mental pitfalls and why are so many people falling for them? What is the supposed �reason� for all this unreason? Somebody is postulating out of their posterior and I want to know who it is because this must come to a screeching halt, and I mean yesterday! Come on out from under your rock you scoundrel; I want to have a word with you!

[ronniemonda9]

sorry, but I think you're just uninformed about it. jumping to conclusions just like the religious folks.

[ronniemonda9]

Hint: I'd start with this bit: "Knowledge is not created by our mind; it is observed (through sensory perception) from out there in reality land by our mind. But before we can use it effectively we must understand it, causally." first. Knowledge is 'observed from out there in reality land'? No no no.

[einsteinsdog]

This is a great question fantastical , very perceptive , yes knowledge must always increase .But there are two objections

Firstly it is impossible for us to know everything about the universe , to do so would mean a deterministic universe ie we would then know the future because there would be no unknowns

Secondly you are proposing that people are basically rational and scientific, however all the evidence points the other way. People are not rational , we are controlled by emotions and hormones etc. We start wars , we fall in love , most people are religious and thats irrational , however religion has been outlawed in several countries and appears to get stronger when this happens so humans seem to do the opposite to what makes sense , in my opinion they are just perverse , how else do you explain atomic bombs made by intelligent scientists?

[mibn2cweus]

Einstein dog, I basically agree with the first half: acquiring knowledge is a step by step, bit by bit and piece by piece process and I doubt that there is a limited quantity of it available.

Although nobody is perfect (whatever that means?) perversity is not so much what we are as what we do. I don�t know that someone can be perfectly rational either or that that is even possible, but I don�t find my self perverse because of this, although I might be in spite of this. What is perverse is when we choose to give up on trying not to become perverse.

Scientist�s by definition must be intelligent people but intelligence does not guaranty moral behavior or personal responsibility. Practicing science requires a great deal of self-discipline and focus and this would be virtually impossible in a situation where they are being continuously disturbed or interrupted from what they are doing. At the same time scientist�s need to be aware of the fact that they have a responsibility to see that the products of there research and discoveries are used responsibly by people who have the best interest of humanity in mind.
As for outlawing religion or the practice thereof; a person can not be forced to use reason or to behave rationally. What one believes and how one behaves is a right of personal choice so long as it does not impose upon or interfere with the rights of others.

[mibn2cweus]

ronniemonda9, I like to believe I�m right most of the time but I realize that I am not right all of the time. I attribute this to my being human which is not an excuse, just an explanation. I accept responsibility for my errors and try to correct them by all means possible. I appreciate it when someone points out an error in my thinking because I know this affects my choices and ultimately my actions and this consequently affects they way I fell about myself as a person.

If you observe an error in my thinking or if you see how I can better express an idea, than if you would be so kind as to explain this to me I would deeply appreciate it. If I have made a mistake I�m sorry but �no, no, no� or �your just like so and so� I�m afraid is not going to help me or anyone else for that matter. Please break it down for me in a way that will help me understand what I�ve done, or where I�ve gone, wrong so that I at least have the option to become a better person.

The above applies to anyone else who can help. Thank You!

[fantastical]

correct, humans are not rational in their decision-making. "They" are motivated to act based on investments of their own self-interests. Even "altruism" is essenstially a selfish motivated action, since its done possibly to satisfy a predisposed innate feeling of "helping others," and satisfaction is thus derived.

But what I was shooting for in my orignial post has nothing to do with "traditional religious doctrine." Religion, again, is typically followed to gain a more comfortable, secure, albeit possibly false, view of an individual's world. Religion therefore follows the view that humans act based on self-interested motives.

My orignial post assumes that religion is false. Meaning in life is nothing more than what humans define it as. Albeit, harm toward others is typically followed by prosecution, but nothing in our world has any "real" meaning, just what is defined in order to serve the self-interests of others (not being murdered is a self-interested gain - and is backed by most contemporary governments and their militia).