God of the Gaps (reject, creation, experience, atheist, faith)

[Nick Soapdish]

I have heard the God of the Gaps argument come up several times lately and so I thought it was appropriate to start a new thread on it.

First off, the argument can treat the belief in God merely as a means to explain how the physical world works. That is the purpose of science, not theology.

However, most theologies depend on mircles and those seem inherently incompatible with the natural order of things that science seeks to describe. The problem is, science depends on induction, and with induction, regardless of how much you know about the mechanics of the physical world, there is nothing that says this order of things cannot be interfered by a higher power (if a higher power exists).

As a side note, quantum physics may provide some insight into how this might happen. I know many atheists hate to see quantum used for this purpose, I think any honest person has to admin that uncertainty feels awfully unnatural. That is why many physicists claim quantum doesn't feel right. I can't help but to think of Matthew 19:26, "With God, all things are possible".

The other side of the argument is that it says a lot about the person who uses the God of the Gaps argument.

I think a rational person ought to look at all of the data they have available to them, about science, philosophy and their experience of the world. They ought to apply their reason first, and their intuition and common sense next, to determine what their world view is.

If that brings someone to atheism, that is fine. But bringing up the God of the Gaps argument demonstrates that person has a blind absolute faith that science will eventually answer any question about the world around us. No matter how inconceivable or absurd the possibility that natural, indifferent processes are responsible for some event, this person will reject the idea that God had anything to do with it. Just in the principle of it. What it really is is a rejection of God and has little to do with scientific evidence.

Let the counter attack begin!

[Scuba Pete]

"The God of the Gaps" is just as fallacious as "The Science of the Gaps". Either expect their faith can explain everything or will be able to do it sometime in the future.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

"The God of the Gaps" is just as fallacious as "The Science of the Gaps". Either expect their faith can explain everything or will be able to do it sometime in the future.

The God-of-the-gaps argument refers to any argument that asserts God as the explanation for a phenomena about which science does not provide a complete understanding. I fully agree that this is a fallacious argument since it is an argument from ignorance. However, I fully disagree that this argument claims that "faith can explain everything or will be able to do it sometime in the future." If this were the case, then God would be pointed to as an explanation of why things fall to the ground instead of gravity or theists would argue that at some point, a theistic explanation for what science currently claims to be gravity will be discovered.

What is the science-of-the-gaps argument?

Nick,
God-of-the-gaps arguments are arguments used by theists to justify belief in God. It is a position that is often criticised by non-theists or theists who hold alternate views and this is where the name is derived. Nonetheless, it is a theistic position, not an atheistic one. Thus your post seems to be attacking the criticism of the "God-of-the-gaps" worldview rather than the "God-of-the-gaps" worldview itself.

The term was first used by Henry Drummond in order to encourage Christians to embrace the whole of the world as God's creation and not merely those areas not yet explained by science. As far as I am concerned, his point is good one.

[Scuba Pete]

I was speaking also of the apparent faith in science. There are MANY who truly believe that science will answer everything. That is a great faith indeed.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

I was speaking also of the apparent faith in science. There are MANY who truly believe that science will answer everything. That is a great faith indeed.

Certainly. But the God-of-the-gaps argument asserts that God is the explanation for certain things that science does not yet explain. Therefore, it neither argues that a theistic worldview can explain anything nor that a scientific one can explain anything. It explicitly states the exact opposite.

So are you stating that the science-of-the-gaps "refers to any argument that asserts science as the explanation for a phenomena about which God does not provide a complete understanding"?

[Jayhawker Soule]

"God-of-the-gaps" is an observation/characterization, not an argument.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Jay

"God-of-the-gaps" is an observation/characterization, not an argument.

"God-of-the-gaps arguments" are those arguments from which the observation is drawn.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Nick,
God-of-the-gaps arguments are arguments used by theists to justify belief in God. It is a position that is often criticised by non-theists or theists who hold alternate views and this is where the name is derived. Nonetheless, it is a theistic position, not an atheistic one. Thus your post seems to be attacking the criticism of the "God-of-the-gaps" worldview rather than the "God-of-the-gaps" worldview itself.

The term was first used by Henry Drummond in order to encourage Christians to embrace the whole of the world as God's creation and not merely those areas not yet explained by science. As far as I am concerned, his point is good one.

Thanks for the information on its origin. I too agree with Henry Drummond.

And that may be its origin, but nowadays it used as an argument commonly by non-theists to criticize points made by theist--like you are just using the "God-of-the-Gaps" view--as it is perceived that religion is retreating to a smaller and smaller set of things to account to God's doing with the ever expanding scientific progress.

[Jose Fly]

I tend to agree with Kenneth Miller who argued that the "God of the Gaps" argument is far more dangerous to religion than science. History has shown that science can figure out the most bewildering of things, so theists would be well-advised to steer clear of pointing to an unexplained phenomenon and declaring "Goddidit" and justifying it by aruging "it hasn't been explained". If a lack of an explanation is argued to be evidence for the existence of a god, then logically the formulation of an explanation is evidence against the existence of a god.

BTW Nick, what is your definition of "miracle"? Is it a confirmed act of a supernatural entity, or is it an unexplained phenomenon?