The so-called "God of the gaps" argument and why it is flawed

I've been running into this theme lately in the Christian Bronies group (which, despite it's name, allows nonbelievers, including anti-theists, to not only voice their opinions - usually to the detriment of the conversation over all and spreading hostility - but also gives them positions as admins); whenever I, and presumably others, try to promote scientific clues that point to God, someone then comes and accuses us of using this supposed argument while either not countering we offer as proof or else deliberately targeting me and others as being ignorant buffoons without any idea of how science works. Basically, they're saying, "You believe in God, therefore any science you offer as proof is invalid," which is NOT an argument and should not be taken as one. And even if that's not what they were literally saying, it gets old when they insult intelligence, even though plenty of modern day scientists and intellectuals are Bible-believing Christians, including many who were former atheists, but whose experiences in their fields of science actually led them to God rather than away. A partial list includes people like Prof. John Lennox, Mike Hulme, and Henry M. Morris. These people were definitely educated, and cannot simply be dismissed.

So, what exactly is the God of the gaps argument, and why is it flawed?

The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.”

The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing.

However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information-packed than had ever been conceived of previously.

Much of what had once been filed away as “solved” in the early twentieth century is now found to be inadequately explained by naturalism. Twenty-first century technology is increasingly revealing gaping holes in conventional evolutionary theory. The information-rich content of the “simple” has only recently been understood at any real level and found to be anything but simple. Information can now be understood to be inherently non-material. Therefore, materialistic processes cannot qualify as sources of information.

In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them. The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20). The God-of-the-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies.

There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the fine-tuning thereof; the origin and subsequent development of life itself; and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means. Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-of-the-gaps.html

And from here; http://creation.com/whose-god-the-theological-response-to-the-god-of-the-gaps

God-of-the-gaps’ fatal assumption

In response to the god-of-the-gaps argument, we point out that it is inapplicable to a presuppositionally biblical approach to science—both as to origins and normative scientific methodology. The god-of-the-gaps argument only functions where Scripture is not the final authority.

The deistic assumption

As philosopher Alvin Plantinga pointed out, the god-of-the-gaps argument assumes something about the theists it is wielded against. It assumes that God is invoked as a kind of ‘large scale hypothesis to explain what cannot be explained otherwise, i.e., naturalistically.’8 If science cannot explain it right now, then God is postulated as the cause. If science can explain it now, God was not the cause. If science cannot explain it now and God is invoked, but later science discovers an explanation, the theist apparently has two choices: (a) acknowledge the scientific version and chalk another item off of God’s ‘to-do’ list, thereby making God’s activity contingent upon science’s inability to explain something naturalistically; or (b) refuse to acknowledge the new science, thereby defending divine action to the detriment of science. Both alternatives present the theist as unscientific in differing degrees. Neither is conducive to scientific progress.

The point that is important is that any approach to God-and-nature that is susceptible to a god-of-the-gaps critique is one in which the only way to determine divine activity in the world is by the scientific method’s failure. And this is not the biblical perspective. It is, rather, reminiscent of deistic9 natural theology of the nineteenth century and before, determining God’s activity based on reasoning divorced from Scripture. This has gone unrecognized for too long

God’s intervention is not ‘contingent’

First, the primary-cause activity of God does not depend on our examining a circumstance for possible naturalistic/scientific explanations, and then inferring God’s activity if no plausible naturalistic explanation turns up. This would be to subject God’s activity to a bizarre kind of contingency analysis, where His activity is contingent on man’s need of God as an explanation or not. Instead, God may have been the cause even when there is a naturalistic explanation.

Consider two of the miracles of Christ: turning water to wine,11 and multiplying loaves and fish.12 Both of these miracles resulted in the creation or transformation of a substance which was not there before. Yet taking the end products in isolation—wine, fish, loaves of bread—there are certainly naturalistic explanations. Wine does not require supernatural activity; just juice from naturally grown fruit and a natural fermentation process. The presence of fish for food does not require supernatural activity: merely the capture of fish that hatched and developed according to normal, scientifically understood processes. Bread is the result of natural chemical and physiological reactions in the combination and heating of natural ingredients under the proper conditions. Yet biblically, we know that none of these natural explanations would be correct for describing the means whereby the end products came about in the cases of these miracles of Christ.

This approach is a natural result of treating Scripture as history in all such cases as it is to be understood that way, under a proper hermeneutical and exegetical approach. We can call this the ‘exegetical’ or ‘historical’ factor. Knowing the facts about God’s action is first of all a matter of exegesis, not scientific determination.13 This is in stark contrast to the ‘deistic’ approach against which the god-of-the-gaps critique operates: it starts from a basically ignorant position, not knowing what act God has done in the world except where God is the only explanation.

Thus the interventions of God in nature are not predicated upon our inability to explain the end result but for a ‘miracle’.14

Miracles are not normative

Second, if we ground our theory of God and nature in Scripture, then miracles are not the normative means of God’s interaction with nature. Science works, and we would assume it to do so on the basis of Scripture. Scripture affirms, under traditional hermeneutical and exegetical principles, an actual creatio ex nihilo that is clearly supernatural.15 It also presents a considerable number of miraculous16 incidents thereafter. But when viewed across the broad spectrum of activity and the long span of time covered by the biblical narrative, miracles are in fact relatively few and far between. After the event of creation itself, God ‘rested’ and ceased from His creative activity.17 Now the normative relationship of God to His creation is upholding18 its consistence.19 Because Scripture also teaches that the character of God is logical, regular and orderly,20 a presumption of orderly natural law is warranted.21 (Indeed, historically, it was this understanding of God’s character that made possible the advance of science and especially the scientific revolution.22)

These two points, fully appreciated, entirely deflate the god-of-the-gaps argument. Following the order in which we presented the god-of-the-gaps argument, we can respond:

1.a) Because of the presumption of regularity in nature, the scientific method is sound, and we do not expect experiments to come out differently because, for instance, God directly did something to the chemicals.

1.b) The impetus for scientific discovery is preserved for the same reason—and indeed furthered—because there is a theological impetus for learning more about the normal means that God uses to uphold creation now.

2. Finally, the fact that God has acted is not contingent upon our inability to explain the event in question. Biblical religion is not an ‘asylum ignorantiae’ but a record of historical events; the fact that an alternate explanation may appear to exist for a particular event of biblical history does not imply, much less raise a presumption, that God did not do it. We do not assume Scripture is wrong when it says God acted, whenever there is some other, seemingly plausible, explanation that would not involve God’s action

I might point out that those opposed to the idea of God, or any idea of any kind of god or Creator, seems to trust in what I call "The science/evolution of the gaps" theory; basically, the idea that science will eventually prove the naturalist theory correct. This has not happened; as an example, there is a complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Darwin, the originator, or at least, the architect, of evolution admitted that a transitional form - i.e., something like a repbird, amphitile, or fishibian - had not yet been found, yet claimed that time would eventually sort this problem out. In fact, it has done the opposite; as George Neville remarked, "...The fossil record nonetheless continues to be comprised mostly of gaps." I find it odd that they accuse Christians and other people of faith of being narrow minded and unintelligent when they continue to put faith - yes, faith - in a theory that has not come through for them.

However, it is the choice of the reader, as always, to listen or not. I ask for politeness in the comments and for disagreements to be respectful to one another.

Joshua 24:15; But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Comments

[Vanilla Mocha]

Thank you!!!

[Fireheart 1945]

4214108 You're welcome

[-AfterBurn-]

Unfortunately, many atheists (and especially anti-thiests) arrogantly assume that Christians are the only ones who believe things without objective proof. They are blind to the fact that their own belief in evolution has the same issue

[Fireheart 1945]

4214479 I agree, though I intend no offense to anyone.

Thanks for stopping by, man! I appreciate it

[-AfterBurn-]

4214729
NP
I always enjoy reading Christian stuff

[Fireheart 1945]

4215741