Materialism of the Gaps arguments

I think a ‘natural god’ would make the words ‘nature’ and ‘god’ interchangeable. Gaia?

I think this gets into certain kinds of theism:

Panentheism would be a God that is Nature, but also beyond Nature.

Pandeism is God became Universe/Nature

Pantheism is God is Universe, but did not cease to exist as is a being in some sense.


Guessing these are all loose definitions, used a quick search.

Of course this gets into the question of what is "Nature" as much as what is "God"?

'One can't ... classify anything as supernatural or nonnatural until one has an account of what is natural.'
    – Galen Strawson

Curious for more detail on following:

Can’t explain immaterial information in biology? Just postulate that immaterial information is a metaphor.

Some more relevant to this:

Excerpt from Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems – Andy C. McIntosh – 2013, at https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/...08728_0008. 

Regarding information as real systems existing independent of energy and matter ‘resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions’ (McIntosh). 

Real systems existing independent of energy and matter are not just metaphors.

"...information is in fact non-material and the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) are not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information (especially Complex Specified Information - ed.) has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates."

Are you saying you don't think logic is objective? That would also make mathematics lack objectivity, since the proofs come from logic.

As for your second paragraph, our reasoning of our actions wouldn't preclude moral instinct. After all once can ask why some good feelings feel good and not others?

This isn't to say that one can find commandments for every situation written into the fabric of reality. But I'm not sure morality needs to have a perfect ordering of actions with Good Place type point totals to be considered objective in at least some sense.

I'm not sure. You can start with a blank slate and then start adding whatever sort of statements and relationships you want. So long as the internal logic is sound it's fine.meaning you can actually creating a foundation of logic that creates entirely different systems of mathematics by defining the base components and generating the rest. Whether that means logic is subjective or not I don't know.

Yes you can analyse why some feelings feel good and others don't but that doesn't change that they feel good at all and that their goodness is what's driving you. Meaning the fact that they feel good is actually irrelevant, it's just the return value of some internal equation. I.e self interest not some deep inner knowing.

If you can't find morality in the fabric of reality that by definition makes it not objective. since it's no longer a neutral thing that exists in a certain static state regardless of belief.

I think a ‘natural god’ would make the words ‘nature’ and ‘god’ interchangeable. Gaia?

Depends on your perspective. If you see 'natural' as being equivalent to the physicalist view of nature (i.e. excluding the so-called supernatural by definition) then some have gone down the route of claiming the word 'god' for the naturalists. I think that Stuart Kauffman is one who holds that view:

Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.

Thus, beyond the new science that glimmers a new world view, we have a new view of God, not as transcendent, not as an agent, but as the very creativity of the universe itself. This God brings with it a sense of oneness, unity, with all of life, and our planet — it expands our consciousness and naturally seems to lead to an enhanced potential global ethic of wonder, awe, responsibility within the bounded limits of our capacity, for all of life and its home, the Earth, and beyond as we explore the Solar System.

But you might notice a bit of an unfair comparison in that quote: "Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days ... ?" suggesting that this is the only concept of God. It is certainly one view - that of religious fundamentalists and, as discussed on this forum, the view of many atheists - but certainly not everyone's idea of God. It is, in fact, a blatant strawman argument but, beyond that, Kauffman goes on to redefine God for the naturalists like himself - as being the equivalent to the creativity of nature.

And yet again, like the materialists referred to in the OP, Kaufmann's "natural creativity" is responsible for filling all of those gaps because, ('natural') God forbid that we suggest that anything might exist beyond the reach of our measuring equipment.

I think a ‘natural god’ would make the words ‘nature’ and ‘god’ interchangeable. Gaia?

I think Gaia is specifically the Earth but in principle you are right except that we would have to differentiate between a non-conscious nature and a consciousness of some sort.  Actually though, I was thinking that maybe God came about because of nature that pre-existed and then went on to arrange nature to create other things but remains a part of nature.

Concerning one of the Materialism of the Gaps categories - the notion that sure, we don't really in any reductionist materialist sense understand purpose, meaning and value in life, so they must be illusions created by evolution - in other words genetically determined. Some new research a little relevant to this:

Genetic Determinism Lives On :   

"The idea that humans are pawns of their genes has a long history, mostly negative. Genetic determinism undermines free will and character, giving people something physical to blame for their problems. Materialists continue the bad habit, though, as shown in this paper in Nature Scientific Reports, “A genetic perspective on the relationship between eudaimonic –and hedonic well-being.” 

Note: Hedonic well-being concerns the simple balance of pleasure over pain (that is, what is personally good as self-interest), and eudaimonic well-being takes well-being to be all about virtuous activity, defined as knowledge of and the fulfilment of human capacities. According to Aristotle, eudaimonic well-being is more than being happy and is about the actualization of the human potential. Several studies have found that people who believe their lives have meaning or purpose appear better off, with better mental and physical health and engagement in healthier life styles.

The news from the University of Amsterdam puts it bluntly: “Discovery of first genetic variants associated with meaning in life.” But can something as psychological or even spiritual be reduced to genes? 

They checked DNA samples of 220,000 individuals, and had them answer a questionnaire. The genetic variants, they say, “are mainly expressed in the central nervous system, showing the involvement of different brain areas.” 

“These results show that genetic differences between people not only play a role in differences in happiness, but also in differences for in meaning in life. By a meaning in life, we mean the search for meaning or purpose of life.”

Did these researchers ever learn that correlation is not causation? Did they inspect their own genes? Did they answer a questionnaire, saying that they felt eudaimonia when proposing genetic determinism? Did their genes determine their own philosophy of mind? If so, then how can anyone believe them? What are universities teaching scientists these days?

Simplistic notions of neo-Darwinism seemed more plausible before new techniques uncovered the evidence of splendid design going on in cells."