If you've ever ridden the "Tube" in London, you've heard the warning "Mind the gap!" as you step from the train. But the warning to "mind the gap" is one that should also be heeded by those engaging in discussions of science and faith. A recent question about a new scientific discovery led to the following discussion of the "God-of-the-Gaps" fallacy, and why we should be careful to avoid such arguments:January 9, 2010 at 3:57 am
David Housholder
What do all of you skeptics and believers make of this?
Amino acids from space?
January 9, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Phil Wala
As a scientist, every new discovery is fascinating to me. And as a believer, it’s doubly fascinating, because I know we’re just reading the record God has put into His creation for us to discover. Here’s another fascinating new discovery about how quickly genetic mutations accumulate: http://www.physorg.com/news181467990.html
Non-believers tend to take these discoveries as proof that God isn’t necessary. In reality, they only disprove some of the “God-of-the-gaps” arguments some Christians try to use. These arguments always make Christians look like idiots, because science keeps making discoveries that fill in those gaps.
What we need to understand is that every time a “gap” is filled in, it only points to a more basic principle of nature — until ultimately, we’re get down to the most fundamental laws of physics, and the question “why does it seem that those laws were designed as if they knew we were coming?” A non-believer can only attribute it to random chance. As a believer in an primal First Cause, I attribute it to a Creator who, in accordance with His divine purpose, spoke every one of those laws into existence at the moment of creation.
Non-believers tend to take these discoveries as proof that God isn’t necessary. In reality, they only disprove some of the “God-of-the-gaps” arguments some Christians try to use. These arguments always make Christians look like idiots, because science keeps making discoveries that fill in those gaps.
What we need to understand is that every time a “gap” is filled in, it only points to a more basic principle of nature — until ultimately, we’re get down to the most fundamental laws of physics, and the question “why does it seem that those laws were designed as if they knew we were coming?” A non-believer can only attribute it to random chance. As a believer in an primal First Cause, I attribute it to a Creator who, in accordance with His divine purpose, spoke every one of those laws into existence at the moment of creation.
January 9, 2010 at 7:21 pm
David Housholder
Say more about the God of the Gaps–this is good stuff. Familiar to me, but you articulate it well. Lay it out for everyone.
January 9, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Phil Wala
“God of the Gaps” refers to the tendency for believers to point to things for which science does not have an explanation, and say, “Aha! Science cannot explain this; therefore, this is proof that there is a God.”
The danger of using an “argument from ignorance” (an argument based on what we don't know) is that the argument is immediately destroyed whenever that gap in knowledge is filled in. And science has a remarkably good track record of filling in gaps in knowledge.
The “irreducible complexity” argument is one of the more recent examples of this fallacy: “Science can’t explain the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting. Therefore, this is proof of God.” It’s a dangerous argument, because it assumes, and actually requires that a particular knowledge gap remain permanent in order for the argument to remain valid. The subtle underlying message we send is: “belief in Christianity is dependent on ignorance, and destroyed by knowledge.” (By the way, compelling evidence for the mechanisms leading both to the flagellum and blood clotting were discovered quite shortly after the “intelligent design” movement put forth those arguments.)
Yes, there will always be gaps in our knowledge. But for believers, those gaps should be seen as a cause for humility, not as a source of “proof”. If we can learn to do that, then every time science fills in one of those gaps, we can embrace it as another revelation of God through His creation. And once we’ve gotten that far, we can then begin marveling over the two new gaps in our knowledge that were uncovered in the process.
For a deeper explanation of the “God-of-the-Gaps” fallacy, including historical examples, and a discussion of this fallacy in the context of arguments from fine tuning of physical laws and the presence of morality, see http://www.biologos.org/questions/god-of-the-gaps/
The danger of using an “argument from ignorance” (an argument based on what we don't know) is that the argument is immediately destroyed whenever that gap in knowledge is filled in. And science has a remarkably good track record of filling in gaps in knowledge.
The “irreducible complexity” argument is one of the more recent examples of this fallacy: “Science can’t explain the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting. Therefore, this is proof of God.” It’s a dangerous argument, because it assumes, and actually requires that a particular knowledge gap remain permanent in order for the argument to remain valid. The subtle underlying message we send is: “belief in Christianity is dependent on ignorance, and destroyed by knowledge.” (By the way, compelling evidence for the mechanisms leading both to the flagellum and blood clotting were discovered quite shortly after the “intelligent design” movement put forth those arguments.)
Yes, there will always be gaps in our knowledge. But for believers, those gaps should be seen as a cause for humility, not as a source of “proof”. If we can learn to do that, then every time science fills in one of those gaps, we can embrace it as another revelation of God through His creation. And once we’ve gotten that far, we can then begin marveling over the two new gaps in our knowledge that were uncovered in the process.
For a deeper explanation of the “God-of-the-Gaps” fallacy, including historical examples, and a discussion of this fallacy in the context of arguments from fine tuning of physical laws and the presence of morality, see http://www.biologos.org/questions/god-of-the-gaps/
Although I disagree with some of your premises (which leads to a disagreement on some conclusions), this is an excellent summary. Thank you Phil. - DH
ReplyDeleteYou don’t specifically cite with which premises or conclusions you disagree, but let me comment further to perhaps clarify a few points.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, let me repeat what I said in an earlier post. I see evidence of an intelligent designer everywhere I look. The problem I have with the popular conception of the “intelligent design” movement is that, by using weak “God of the Gaps” arguments, it actually portrays God as being less intelligent than He really is. It tends to defined God’s intelligence in terms of our own, and puts unnecessary limits on His ability.
Take, for example, the claims of Newton cited in the Biologos article linked to in my previous post. Newton described the laws of gravity that kept planets in orbit around the sun. But he assumed that the perturbations caused by planets interacting with each other were something God had to keep correcting for. In essence, he was saying, “I never would have anticipated that problem, so God probably didn’t either. The fact that everything works is evidence that God is constantly interacting with His creation, in order to keep compensating for the flaws in His original design.” Further study, of course, showed that the planetary interactions are in equilibrium, and no correcting hand is necessary.
In essence, the “God of the Gaps” argument says, “Here’s something we observe in nature that the greatest scientific minds don’t have an explanation for. Therefore, this can only be explained by God stepping in to make it happen.”
The naturalist argument says, “We have studied it further, and can now explain how this happened. Therefore, your God is not necessary.”
My response is, “The explanation for how it happened is evidence that the intelligence of the Designer is far beyond our own. We thought this was an inexplicable problem that could only be explained by the correcting hand of God when, in fact, we have just discovered that He already anticipated how this would work, and built the mechanism into His creation from the very beginning.”