This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← God of the gaps explained

God of the gaps explained - Comments

Andrew B.'s Avatar Comment 1 by Andrew B.

Ha, I was thinking about submitting this same cartoon. Very cute.

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:21:48 UTC | #877436

Eric G's Avatar Comment 2 by Eric G

Love it when I saw it. Sums up that mentality perfectly.

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:41:43 UTC | #877525

Sjoerd Westenborg's Avatar Comment 3 by Sjoerd Westenborg

I'm still pretty sure it's a duck. It says so on the box. The Box DOESN'T LIE!

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:16:19 UTC | #877564

Barty77's Avatar Comment 4 by Barty77

LOVE IT!!!

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:21:00 UTC | #877569

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 5 by justinesaracen

Very cute cartoon. I'd love to share it, but the grammar in the very first frame sets my teeth on edge.

It should be "puzzle pieces LYING here next to the box. ("Laying" requires an object).

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:32:28 UTC | #877694

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 6 by SaganTheCat

Comment 3 by Sjoerd Westenborg :

I'm still pretty sure it's a duck. It says so on the box. The Box DOESN'T LIE!

If I may take the moderate position; I think the picture on the box is open to interpretation, the jigsaw manufacturer has made a jigsaw puzzle of a "duck" but not in the litteral sense. I think we can all see a bit of duck in pooh bear if we know how to look. clearly to expect the picture on the box to be the same as the puzzle is taking a woefully litteral approach to complex issue of puzzle/games packaging that has led to this rather fashionable intollerance to what they call "false advertising"

if you can't look at an image of tigger and pooh playing in a stream and not see the underlying duckness of it you should not abuse your position of disney themed childrens puzzles expert just to spoil beliefs other people might hold dear.

stalin. there i've said it.

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:13:53 UTC | #877736

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 7 by justinesaracen

Daniel, nice try, but the real problem is that people in their crass materialism are too caught up in the delusion of the tiger. They are fooled by their own egotism and belief in their own faulty eyes.

Anyone who has truly declared himself to The Duck is not fooled by the worldly tiger image. It was placed there by Satan to lure us away from the Duckish Truth.

Quacks upon you.

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:19:06 UTC | #877802

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 8 by Alan4discussion

Well wadddaya know! An example of the stupid, ignorant, thinking searching for "gaps" to try to justify creationist denial of science - and soooo offended at the dismissal of the nonsensical claims!

How to refute creationist nonsense on transitional species - Comment 40 by steve b1njo -
Hi all. My perspective is, that there may be more to this reality than science can yet measure. My comment is, that words such as "stupid " or "ignorant", when used to describe people who have a different view, even if that view is mistaken, do not further the cause of science at all. Obviously , from some comments here, science has not yet found a way to overcome intolerance. Until science is complete, none of us really KNOWS, and maybe we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking we do.

(Patronising special pleading for tolerance of incompetent or dishonest drivel being presented as science for as long as any "gaps" remain!) - With the added ridiculous assertion that dismissing ludicrously false ideas, does " not further the cause of science at all."

Pure quackers quackology!

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:14:06 UTC | #878185

Instrument's Avatar Comment 9 by Instrument

I think its a great way to express serious issues.

Two "cute" blind indifferent mice (In a manner of speaking) I certainly was attracted to the unfolding story. Thanks for that.

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:33:34 UTC | #878412

Markyboy01's Avatar Comment 10 by Markyboy01

nailed it!

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:18:31 UTC | #878422

Sjoerd Westenborg's Avatar Comment 11 by Sjoerd Westenborg

Dear, dear Daniel and Esuther,

I'm afraid you've been led astray by a false prophet know as the Goose. He will tell you that the cover of the box isn't inspired by the Creator of the Jigsaw himself and isn't to be taken literal. We, who have studied the Cover for 1600 years, have come to the conclusion that the Duck can only be a Duck, and that the fine print on the back tells us that all who think different then we do is a danger to us, erhm... the Duck.

May the holy quack descend upon you!

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:59:53 UTC | #878571

Alex, adv. diab.'s Avatar Comment 12 by Alex, adv. diab.

No sophisticated quackologian today still believes that the cover is to be taken literally, and insisting that there should be a duck obviously printed on the puzzle only because it is shown on the cover, is not only bad science, but also bad quackology. The duck on the cover has to be seen in a larger spiritual context, in which it contains a deeper truth, namely that the puzzle exhibits the quality of duckishness which is transported subtextually by the essence of the picture apparently printed on the jigsaw puzzle. To quote Augustinus,

In comparison to them the actual bodies which we see with our fleshly sight, both celestial and terrestrial, are far more certain. These true bodies even the beasts and birds perceive as well as we do and they are more certain than the images we form about them.

he concludes

We can see all those things which thou hast made because they are - but they are because thou seest them. And we see with our eyes that they are, and we see with our minds that they are good. But thou sawest them as made when thou sawest that they would be made.

In this sense, the jigsaw puzzle represents a duck which is just as real as anything in experience, but which is only accessible to the mind in a spiritual fashion. Thus, to help us see the true nature of things, the holy mother church has given us the cardboard box catechism.

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:24:26 UTC | #881501

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 13 by DavidMcC

The ultimate mystery is where is the other puzzle? You know, the one called "Puzzle Duck". You should find the pieces next to a box with a picture of Winnie the Pooh and Tigger.

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:12:25 UTC | #882091

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 14 by DavidMcC

... We must call this search the "search for the holy quail"!

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:23:51 UTC | #882095

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 15 by Alan4discussion

Comment 14 by DavidMcC

... We must call this search the "search for the holy quail"!

OR -" Where's Daffy Duck"?

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:58:55 UTC | #882108

Alex, adv. diab.'s Avatar Comment 16 by Alex, adv. diab.

This is all very puzzling indeed

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:37:49 UTC | #882683

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 17 by Schrodinger's Cat

It would appear to any good Devil's advocate that this is merely ducking the issue.

The premise would appear to be that the existence of natural laws disproves the existence of God.....and leaves him scant room to hide.

However.....one has to ask......what would one conclude about God from a universe with NO laws ? Would one not equally argue that a universe with no laws and total chaos was unlikely to be presided over by any self respecting God ?

Hmmm. So...laws disprove God, and no laws disprove God. Hardly a logical and rational stance.

Logically, if the alternation of a specific position makes no difference to the outcome of an argument.......if A disproves B and 'not A' also disproves B......then the correct conclusion is that there is actually no connection between A and B.

I've argued for quite some time that the whole 'God of the gaps' argument is a logical fallacy. The best logical argument against God is simply that there is no evidence that he exists.

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:49:43 UTC | #882951

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 18 by Alan4discussion

Comment 17 by Schrodinger's Cat

Hmmm. So...laws disprove God, and no laws disprove God. Hardly a logical and rational stance.

I've argued for quite some time that the whole 'God of the gaps' argument is a logical fallacy. The best logical argument against God is simply that there is no evidence that he exists.

Is any one claiming that the "god-of-gaps" disproves gods?
I would have thought that it simply proves the diminishing places for alleged evidence of gods to be hiding!

I suppose inferences can be drawn from the debunking of earlier gods alleged to inhabit gaps which are now closed, but that only falsifies previous arguments. The "no evidence despite extensive searches" position, is the decisive addition.

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:59:21 UTC | #883176

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 19 by Alan4discussion

Tourist: How do we cross the river here?

Pseudo-scientist: There's a ford down the track. You're in a 4 wheel drive.

Tourist; It looks a bit deep after the rain!

Pseudo-scientist: Nah! It's only a couple of inches!

Tourist: Are you sure? Well! here goes!

Tourist: (sticking head out of the sun-roof) You idiot! It's halfway up the windscreen!

Pseudo-scientist: It's not my fault! It only came a couple of inches up the ducks! You must have driven off the road!

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:35:49 UTC | #886106

Micmac274's Avatar Comment 20 by Micmac274

Of course, the duck's main opponents, which include Dr. Richard Hawkins and of course, Stephen Hawking, say that there is no evidence he exists. We cannot find a single piece to this puzzle and whenever someone says they have found a piece, the other pieces we have found do not fit together with it. They are either parts of other puzzles, or counterfeit pieces manufactured by crooks. Hawkins believes that believers in the Duck are suffering from a mental mallardy which makes them believe in things that are not real.

(I don't actually know if hawks are in competition with ducks, just that the name fit.)

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:56:17 UTC | #907665

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 21 by Schrodinger's Cat

Comment 18 by Alan4discussion

Is any one claiming that the "god-of-gaps" disproves gods? I would have thought that it simply proves the diminishing places for alleged evidence of gods to be hiding!

I suppose inferences can be drawn from the debunking of earlier gods alleged to inhabit gaps which are now closed, but that only falsifies previous arguments. The "no evidence despite extensive searches" position, is the decisive addition.

I find the 'god of the gaps' argument produces a gut sense of logical fallaciousness. It is like so many arguments that appear sound on a superficial level....but which run into trouble the moment one takes a deeper look.

For example......to argue that Maxwell's laws 'explained' electricity sort of misses the point....what would you expect the laws of electricity to look like if any 'god' was responsible for them ? What actually constitutes evidence for God ?

Why does the existence of any 'law' disprove God, when one would equally as well conclude that the absence of any laws disproved God ? Surely one would conclude that a totally chaotic universe with no laws whatever could not possibly be the result of any God.

If you looked at a human brain at the level of protons and electrons, you would find absolutely no evidence of an intelligent being inside. I could thus just as easily use 'the laws of physics' to prove that you don't exist.

I'm fine with the major scientific argument against God...namely that there is no evidence he exists. But I find that a lot of other 'arguments against God' are logically fallacious notions that have been tacked on to this. 'God of the gaps' is one such.

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:56:15 UTC | #907685