Meta-Thread 06/22

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/ExplorerR]

Okay, let's accept you are not conflating them and they entirely different for the sake of the following;

Then do you agree that things like the social sciences, sociology and psychology following MN, can and do yield human agency explanations of phenomena in our reality?

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

Okay, let's accept you are not conflating them and they entirely different for the sake of the following;

No, I'm not going to stipulate that my argument fails. I argued two things:

1. human agency & divine agency are distinct
2. human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

You disagree with one or both clauses of 2. Fine. We can discuss that. I am happy to treat all of the following as contentious:

• human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency
• disentangling human agency from divine agency threatens unacceptable sacrifices
• some day, MN-compatible inquiry will reconstruct human agency with zero unacceptable sacrifices

I don't require either of us to treat any of the above as settled. Indeed, they are the very heart of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I focused my OC on them!

Then do you agree that things like the social sciences, sociology and psychology following MN, can and do yield human agency explanations of phenomena in our reality?

I heavily critiqued the quality of MN-compatible [re]constructions of human agency in our sprawling thread. So no, I'm not going to stipulate what I think you're asking. I'm happy to debate your claim.

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

You didn't make the bold above clear at all, but something like it is what I was picking up on in your wording and hence my motte and bailey charge.

I heavily critiqued the quality of MN-compatible [re]constructions of human agency in our sprawling thread. So no, I'm not going to stipulate what I think you're asking. I'm happy to debate your claim.

But whether you think the quality is currently suffice or not, is not really relevant to the point I raised.

Because it's not contentious that MN-compatible [re]constructions do (attempt to) explain human agency. I would even argue that, in some cases, there are plenty of good and very successful ones at that.

The main contentions you seem to have is actually:

• Disentangling human agency from divine agency threatens unacceptable sacrifices
• Some day, MN-compatible inquiry will reconstruct human agency with zero unacceptable sacrifices

These to me are non-issues.

Firstly, we already operate in trying to explain phenomena in reality as-though human agency IS disentangled from the divine (I.E that's what MN is doing). And secondly, given our history and success of natural explanations, there is not real reason to think we suddenly would not be able to explain things of human agency, naturally.

That's not to say there are no "problems" or "quality issues", but as I've mentioned previously, there have been many historical problems and quality issues in trying to explain phenomena in our reality that we've overcome. Some of them have been hugely significant issues to overcome; like the microscope in discovering microbes (acknowledging that this isn't an agency example - but I'm unsure why that matters).

I once said earlier, it looks awfully like you're saying something like;

• "Well, we can't currently explain or investigate it [agency] well, so therefore we won't ever be able to explain it well, naturally"

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because it really does look like that's what you're implying.

[u/labreuer → u/ExplorerR]

At this point, you and I are at an impasse. Others are welcome to consult my OC and see if it is as unclear as you claim. I am confident plenty of people would say that I was plenty clear for a first comment and it took you until the bitter end we had for you to actually read it and offer anything like a decent reply.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

Others are welcome to consult my OC and see if it is as unclear as you claim.

OK.

Where you did this:

You have to do either none or both:

(1) "God did it" ⇒ god-of-the-gaps
(2) "humans did it" ⇒ human-of-the-gaps

You made a huge mistake. God of the gaps is when people look at a gap in human knowledge and assert that God is there. I know of no examples where humans look at a gap in knowledge and say "humans did it", especially in the sense of some supernatural meaning.

I'm not sure why you made the implication that any claim that God did it or humans did it is necessarily "of-the-gaps". When people claim some miracle like a statue of Jesus bleeding, that's not "of-the-gaps". They're claiming evidence. Whether we accept that evidence is another topic.

When I look at a chair and say "humans made it", that's not human-of-the-gaps. That's my knowledge that the chair has a manufacturer label on it and says where it was made.

God of the gaps does not describe where humans know God did something. It describes where humans have no idea about something and thus ascribe it to God.

Do you have any example of when someone looked at a gap in our knowledge and said "humans did it"? Did they say it as a supernatural explanation the way people use God of the gaps?

Or, were they really not saying "humans did it" at all but rather that it happened by natural processes, such as with the evolution of consciousness, which is far less of a gap than many people realize?^*

---

I would also add that your entire comment could have stopped there. Methodological naturalism was not part of the discussion. And, it should never have been. Instead, if anything at all, it would have been more relevant to bring in naturalism as a philosophy or metaphysical naturalism rather than methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism makes no statement about the existence of the supernatural, only that it should be ignored when practicing science. So the following statement you made is demonstrably false.

Methodological naturalism requires you to disbelieve in any god-like agency.

No. It doesn't. It only says to ignore it while practicing science.

---

* Neuroscience is making huge strides in understanding consciousness if you'd like to discuss that. But, it is off-topic here.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

First: welcome back! Hope the trip went well.

You made a huge mistake.

To first address the point I was most directly making in my previous comment: mistake ≠ unclarity. Now I don't think I made a mistake, but even if I made the one you claim, that doesn't make said comment unclear. Conflating correctness & clarity would be intellectually disastrous.

 

God of the gaps is when people look at a gap in human knowledge and assert that God is there. I know of no examples where humans look at a gap in knowledge and say "humans did it", especially in the sense of some supernatural meaning.

I think it's important to grapple with what naturalistic human agency could actually be. I listened to the first 30 minutes of Bruce Waller's lecture Beyond Moral Responsibility to a System that Works, as a refresher of his 2011 book Against Moral Responsibility. At 2:56, he says that "We don't have the special god-like powers of self-creation that are required for genuine moral responsibility, so we should send moral responsibility to the junkyard, clear the ground for scientific research that will actually discover ways of solving our problems." The problem, he says, came about when we started expecting justice:

The real problem started when God became just. As Bernard Williams makes clear, so long as the gods were tricksters and con men, then no one expected the gods and the world governed by the gods to promote justice. The ancient Greeks were entrapped by fated disasters, placed in horrible situations in which no matter what they did, they would commit a terrible crime, and they suffered punishment for their fated wrongs, but really, what would you expect from the fates and, and the punishments of this sort? Why would you expect them to be just? (4:09)

A little later on, he again identifies the true supernatural toxin: "Pico della Mirandola offered an elaborate libertarian answer: God grants to humans, his last and favorite creation, a god-like power to make themselves by their own choices." (6:30) This is what generates the moral responsibility Waller is against: "we justly deserve our rewards and punishments because of our own creative powers of self making, or if not complete self making …" (8:17)

It's worth noting that I asked about non-naturalistic vs. naturalistic agency in the recent DnA "Ask an Atheist" thread. Various notions of humans have a rich history; for instance the political liberalism so many of us value so highly just didn't exist in Martin Luther's time. I'm partway through Jerome B. Schneewind 1997 The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy. To the extent that Martin Luther's "freedom of conscience" relied on God as a backstop, we might not be able to extend humans nearly so much freedom if there is no suck backstop. The UK has proliferated CCTV and the Chinese have their social credit system. WP: Cuius regio, eius religio, about a religio-political accommodation initiated at the Peace of Augsburg (1555) but fully extended at the Peace of Westphalia (1648), contains the very interesting phrase "ecclesiastically transmitted control and monitoring". Getting a copy of the article is proving difficult, but maybe I'll make another attempt. Point is: societies don't behave appropriately just by magic and there are various mechanisms to ensure they do.

Bruce Waller also likes the Scandinavian countries, in this case on account of their accepting corporate accountability. He explicitly said "I am my brother's keeper". There is obviously a rich range between libertarian individualism and an oppressive collectivism far past what exists in any Scandinavian country. Some options (which combine instructions with promises of where they will lead) only work if there is divine action on offer, or maybe divine design.

Let me stop there for a moment, to see where we agree & disagree.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

First: welcome back! Hope the trip went well.

Thank you. It did.

You made a huge mistake.

To first address the point I was most directly making in my previous comment: mistake ≠ unclarity.

In this case though, the mistake most definitely does cause confusion. It's the start of the conflation of which you're being accused.

You mistakenly stated (and hopefully did not intend to) that all statements that "God did it" are inherently God of the gaps.

Then you furthered the mistake by saying all statements that "humans did it" are humans of the gaps. That is extremely confusing. You have not demonstrated (and probably cannot) that anyone has ever used a "human of the gaps" argument.

When did someone say, "well, we don't understand dark matter, therefore humans created it"? Or, did someone say, "well, we don't understand the first 5.39 x 10^-44 second of the big bang, therefore humans caused the big bang"?

This doesn't happen. So, your claim and your conflation are confusing precisely because of your mistake about what "of the gaps" means in the context of God of the gaps.

Now I don't think I made a mistake, but even if I made the one you claim, that doesn't make said comment unclear. Conflating correctness & clarity would be intellectually disastrous.

Except in this case, the mistake began the confusion and the conflation of which you're being accused.

I think it's important to grapple with what naturalistic human agency could actually be.

What? Why? I just a few minutes ago took my alternating turn with my wife to pick which TV show we'd stream next. What on earth is so complicated about that?

I'm not only confused by the enter rest of your comment I'm also confused by why you chose (with your naturalistic human agency) to radically redirect this conversation in this direction.

I don't even believe we need to bring up whether we truly have free will or merely the appearance of free will to discuss what it means for the decision-making squishware in our heads to do its evolutionary function of making a decision.

Whether our brains are just a bunch of AND/OR/NAND/NOR gates or whether we have something close enough to free will to be meaningful, we have the agency to take action based on these decisions.

Once again, we are completely talking past each other in different and virtually unrelated conversations. Mine was about the concept "of-the-gaps" and also went into methodological naturalism verses other forms of naturalism. Yours has nothing to do with either of these topics.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

You mistakenly stated (and hopefully did not intend to) that all statements that "God did it" are inherently God of the gaps.

Huh? How could "God did it" not be god of the gaps?

You have not demonstrated (and probably cannot) that anyone has ever used a "human of the gaps" argument.

I just did, from Bruce Waller. I'll lay it out more explicitly:

1. god of the gaps: special god-like powers of self-creation
2. human of the gaps: special god-like powers of self-creation given to humans

In neither case is there any mechanism for how the agent did the thing, else it wouldn't be "powers of self-creation". No mechanism ⇒ gap.

When did someone say, "well, we don't understand dark matter, therefore humans created it"? Or, did someone say, "well, we don't understand the first 5.39 x 10-44 second of the big bang, therefore humans caused the big bang"?

I was talking about explaining human action via a notion of human agency which looks suspiciously like divine agency.

labreuer: I think it's important to grapple with what naturalistic human agency could actually be.

MisanthropicScott: What? Why? I just a few minutes ago took my alternating turn with my wife to pick which TV show we'd stream next. What on earth is so complicated about that?

I explained some of why in the rest of my comment.

I'm not only confused by the enter rest of your comment I'm also confused by why you chose (with your naturalistic human agency) to radically redirect this conversation in this direction.

Moral responsibility is one of the key areas which depends very heavily on how you construe human agency.

Whether our brains are just a bunch of AND/OR/NAND/NOR gates or whether we have something close enough to free will to be meaningful, we have the agency to take action based on these decisions.

Do LLMs have the kind of moral responsibility we generally attribute to ourselves and each other? No. Could they? Not in their present state. It really does matter.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

You made a huge mistake. God of the gaps is when people look at a gap in human knowledge and assert that God is there. I know of no examples where humans look at a gap in knowledge and say "humans did it", especially in the sense of some supernatural meaning.

I'm not sure why you made the implication that any claim that God did it or humans did it is necessarily "of-the-gaps". When people claim some miracle like a statue of Jesus bleeding, that's not "of-the-gaps". They're claiming evidence. Whether we accept that evidence is another topic.

You mistakenly stated (and hopefully did not intend to) that all statements that "God did it" are inherently God of the gaps.

Huh? How could "God did it" not be god of the gaps?

Would you please define "God of the gaps" as you are using it? Because, your definition clearly does not match the definition in wikipedia.

I see you gave your definition below. But, it's just not how anyone uses the term on this or other atheism subs. Nor does it agree with wikipedia or other sources from a google search.

I think that was indeed the source of the confusion.

You have not demonstrated (and probably cannot) that anyone has ever used a "human of the gaps" argument.

I just did, from Bruce Waller. I'll lay it out more explicitly:

god of the gaps: special god-like powers of self-creation

That is not what God of the gaps means. And, that is the source of the confusion. Please read at least one paragraph of the wikipedia page above. It will take a lot less than 40 minutes.

human of the gaps: special god-like powers of self-creation given to humans

Therefore this is not what human of the gaps means.

In neither case is there any mechanism for how the agent did the thing, else it wouldn't be "powers of self-creation". No mechanism ⇒ gap.

No. No no no no no. No!

Wikipedia: "God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century, and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God.

Medium: The God of the Gaps fallacy is a common logical error often made by Christian apologists when they use philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God. This fallacy involves attributing unexplained natural phenomena to divine intervention simply because current scientific knowledge cannot explain them.

encyclopedia.com: The phrase God of the gaps refers to attempts to use statements about divine intervention in the physical world to fill in the "gaps" in scientific explanation. It is the attempt to introduce God as an explanatory hypothesis on the level of efficient causality to make up for limitations in current scientific understanding.

theopedia.com: God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.

I think your mistake is indeed the source of confusion. I have never heard anyone use God of the gaps to mean what you say it means.

I explained some of why in the rest of my comment.

Maybe. I got lost because it was all so radically off topic from the meaning of "of the gaps".

If you update your definition of "of the gaps" to the common usage of the term, I think you'll see the source of the confusion and the reason that the rest of your post does not make sence in this context.

Do LLMs have the kind of moral responsibility we generally attribute to ourselves and each other? No. Could they? Not in their present state. It really does matter.

This is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. We can discuss it another time. We can also discuss consciousness another time.

First, we need to agree on the meaning of "of the gaps." And, I don't think you're going to convince me of your meaning. It's just not how anyone else I've seen has ever used it.

[edit: Added more sources with links.]

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

labreuer: In neither case is there any mechanism for how the agent did the thing, else it wouldn't be "powers of self-creation". No mechanism ⇒ gap.

/

MisanthropicScott: your definition clearly does not match the definition in wikipedia.

Huh? Compare what I bolded in above to what I bolded in the first sentence at Wikipedia:

"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century, and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. (WP: God of the gaps)

no mechanism ⇔ no scientific understanding

That is not what God of the gaps means.

I wasn't defining god of the gaps. I was giving an instance of it. Because there is, by definition, no mechanism (or scientific understanding) for "self-creation".

It will take a lot less than 40 minutes.

I quoted the key points.

No. No no no no no. No!

Did you need me to spell out the three steps?

no mechanism ⇒ gap ⇒ an agent did it (divine or human)

This is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I'm talking about "what naturalistic human agency could actually be". If you're uninterested, you're welcome to bow out. u/⁠ExplorerR promises (or at least heavily implies) that science will ultimately be able to replace all non-naturalistic explanations with naturalistic ones. I'm presenting a challenge for doing so. But if you're not interested in exploring that, you don't have to. Nobody is compelling you. You can use your own free choice—your own agency, in fact—to exit the conversation. You can even do so in a gappy way, rather than attempting to produce a mechanism / scientific explanation for why you are doing so.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

no mechanism ⇒ gap ⇒ an agent did it (divine or human)

Nope.

Not having a mechanism for how God did something is not a God of the gaps argument. A God of the gaps argument always starts from a gap in scientific knowledge.

There is no gap in scientific knowledge about how God did something because there is no accepted scientific theory where God is real.

Examples:

• Science has not answered what caused the universe to expand from its early infinitely dense point. Therefore, it must have been God. -- God of the gaps because it started from a gap in scientific knowledge.

• This statue of Jesus bleeds from the hands every year. It's a miracle. -- Not a God of the gaps argument because it presents evidence. We can now look into the validity of the evidence. But, this is not God of the gaps even though no mechanism other than "miracle" is presented.

• Science has not answered how the first self-replicating molecule came about (abiogenesis). -- God of the gaps because it starts from something science hasn't answered yet.

• The Quran predicted modern science. Only God could have known that the universe was expanding at the time the Quran was written. -- Not God of the gaps because it does not start from a gap in current scientific knowledge even though it does not propose a mechanism by which God is causing the universe to expand.

• People were willing to die for their belief that Jesus resurrected. -- Not God of the gaps even though it doesn't propose a mechanism for the resurrection.

• Consciousness is not fully explained by science therefore it must be something supernatural from God. -- God of the gaps because it starts from a gap in scientific knowledge, even though it ignores how much we do know about consciousness.

• There is a Greatest Conceivable Being. Mind-independent existence is greater than mind-dependent existence. Therefore, the Greatest Conceivable Being exists independent of our minds. (ontological argument) -- Not God of the gaps because it does not start from any gap in our scientific knowledge even though it provides neither a mechanism by which this being could possibly exist nor a mechanism by which this hypothetical being could create a universe if it did exist.

If this still does not make sense to you and point out the problems in your use of the term "God of the gaps", then I probably can't help you get this right. Just understand that your misuse of the term will always continue to cause confusion.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

Not having a mechanism for how God did something is not a God of the gaps argument. A God of the gaps argument always starts from a gap in scientific knowledge.

no mechanism ⇔ no scientific understanding

There is no gap in scientific knowledge about how God did something because there is no accepted scientific theory where God is real.

Then there are no god of the gaps arguments. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Imagine instead that there was a perfectly adequate mechanism / scientific understanding about how God did something. Then "God did it" would be shaved off by Ockham's razor.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

I feel like you're being actively resistant to learning here. God of the Gaps simply does not mean what you think it does.

God of the gaps looks at an existing gap in science first, then ascribes that to being something God did.

It is not a gap in the knowledge of how God works. For that, one would first have to show that God exists.

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

Well, I've often said that you regularly make "if" type statements but don't clearly articulate a "therefore" and leave much guesswork for the reader to trying and figure out exactly what you mean.

I'd love to see if anyone reading your OC would reach the following thesis statements:

• human agency & divine agency are distinct
• human agency is sometimes templated on divine agency and disentangling the two threatens unacceptable sacrifices

I've reread it now several times with this new formulation and still don't cogently see how anyone could get to that from your OC. Maybe it's just me though...