When a religious debate or argument takes place, it is fairly common to hear the skeptical (atheist) side to accuse to religious side of believing in “God of the Gaps.” I found this term very strange the very first time I heard it, and had to actually look up the meaning myself.
After I looked it up, I could understand what they were trying to say, yet at the same time I felt as if they had completely misinterpreted what religious people mean (or think) when they pose an argument that gets quickly labeled as a “God of the Gaps” argument.
So I felt compelled to explain a bit more about this God of the Gaps accusation that gets thrown around by skeptics, and hopefully shed some light on the whole idea in general. This is done so that the skeptic may not make the really foolish mistake of ever again using this argument.
What Does God of the Gaps Mean Anyway?
The phrase God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the “gaps” or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge.
The basic idea (according to skeptics) is that God really doesn’t exist at all. God, in fact, was an idea that was created by mankind to fill in “Gaps” of limits in scientific knowledge. They argue, however, that once these gaps are filled with scientific facts or explanations, God is needed less and less. Thus, once the “gaps” are filled, God becomes useless.
Any time a religious person uses an argument that includes the complexity of something, or discusses our limits of knowledge and attribute that act to God, it immediately gets shot down by the skeptic and the religious person is labeled as believing in “God of the Gaps.”
Just to quickly illustrate what “God of the Gaps” means, here is an example:
John claims that because life is complex, it proves God exists. Sammy immediately rejects this notion and claims John believes in God of the Gaps. Sammy says that while not all questions have been answered by science, the gaps should soon be filled with a logical scientific explanation, and God wasn’t behind it at all. Therefore, Sammy assumes John is an idiot and only believes in God because he can’t explain something scientifically.
The example above illustrates a common illustration of God of the Gaps views by skeptics. They also like to mock various religious people and say ‘GOD-DID-IT” for everything.
So based on all of this, I would like to offer an explanation of why people use arguments that are sometimes mis-labeled as “God of Gaps,” and also illustrate what most religious people actually think.
The Truth Behind God of the Gaps Arguments and an Explanation
The expression “God of the Gaps” is really a pointless, inaccurate, and incomplete view of the religious perspective. I don’t know of one religious person who actually believes in the “God of the Gaps” as set forth by most skeptics. In fact, it is the complete opposite, and God did it is typically a response meaning (I don’t know the scientific process, but I still know God did it all).
I personally don’t believe in “God of the Gaps.” I believe only in “Science of the Gaps.” There are no gaps whatsoever concerning God. The only gaps I know about are gaps of “Science” (science means “Knowledge”). We still have dramatic gaps in knowledge, and sadly, probably always will.
Every single thing in existence is a direct result of God–either by his passive will or active will. Either it is a direct result of God, or an indirect result of God. But in any situation, in any particular example, God is always the end result. This can be illustrated very simply.
Imagine that the scientist over at the big Hadron Collider created a mini-universe that was relatively self-sustaining in the year 2090. These scientists could choose to act on that universe, or choose to let the universe continue as they created it. In fact, they don’t have to choose just one, they can both interact on occasion, and allow it to progress according to the laws of physics they established at it’s beginning.
In this example above, the scientists are always in control, and they are at all times able to alter it. When something happens within that mini-universe, that can be directly attributed to the scientists, regardless of whether the scientists actively made a particular thing happen, or if they passively let it happen. This is because the scientists in fact created the whole thing. So it isn’t incorrect to attribute anything that happens within it as being done “by the scientists.” It would be accurate, and it is just a matter whether they did this actively or passively.
Now, continuing with this same example–let’s assume that the scientists allow small creatures to inhabit this mini-universe. Eventually the creatures become curious, and decide they want to investigate this mysterious universe.
Thus begins the dawn of “science” for these creatures. When the creatures begin to examine the laws in the universe, they quickly see that in fact all things can be equated with some scientific principle. When they see lightning, it wasn’t because of some “scientists” out there creating it. No way!
In fact, the lightning came from a difference in charged particles. The creatures continue to use the tools of science to investigate every single thing, until they have a scientific explanation for everything. All of the creatures immediately become atheists, and think they know it all.
Now, let me stop right there. Based on the story, you already know that in fact the universe was created by an intelligent designer (the scientists at Hadron lab). So what is going on here? Are the scientists, “Creators of the Gaps” in the view of the creatures? Or do the scientists really exist, and they just keep discovering the “how”? The scientists really exist, right?
So assume a creature becomes religious, and views that there is an intelligent designer that created that universe. He bases this all on a “book” that was allegedly dictated to the scientists. He tells his other creature buddies that he believes an intelligent designer did it all. They all scoff at him, and call him crazy. “We already have science that shows us how it happened,” scoffs one of the creatures.
So which creature is being more closed minded? Which one is correct? The creature that acknowledges the potential for an intelligent designer, yet at the same time acknowledges the scientific processes behind nature is the most open-minded, and the most correct. The non-believing creature in that example is in fact wrong, and fairly closed minded as well. I don’t think any sane person would try to argue that the “believing” creature is the closed minded one in this example.
So Did God Do Everything, Or Did Nature? Is God of the Gaps a Fallacious Argument?
The really revolutionary concept about God as presented by the bible is the simple fact that God is not presented as a “created thing.” God isn’t the sun. God isn’t the moon. God is described outside of nature, and all things within creation come from God. God was never created, and had no beginning. This is a massive contrast to almost all other religious views of a “god.”
Similar to the story I told above about the scientists at Hadron creating a mini-universe, God too created our universe. So this begs the question: Can God ever be falsely attributed to anything in our physical universe, since all things in creation came from God? If God is interconnected to it, and in fact created it, how is that ever wrong? Is God of the Gaps even a valid argument at all when used by atheists? The answer is–no, that argument is a joke.
Any thing that occurs or exists can accurately be attributed to God, whether or not there is a reasonable scientific explanation for it. If lightning strikes the ground, I can accurately say, “God did it.”
Someone may try to quickly correct me and say, “No no, in fact that was a process that is natural. It happened because of a difference in charged particles at the lower and upper layers of the atmosphere. This charge created a bolt of electricity.”
I, then, could quickly correct this person and say, “Well yes, that is the means by which the lightning happened. But why do we have lightning at all? Why a universe at all? The answer always comes back to the same being: God.”
Therefore anyone, at any time, can accurately and reasonably attribute any naturalistic phenomena (whether explained or unknown by science) as being from God or by God, and they are not incorrect. So if a person does not know a scientific process behind something, they can skip the actual explanation of how it occurred, and instead jump right to the source: God. They are still correct and fully accurate, they just don’t worry with the scientific details.
Any one who really ever accuses a religious person of believing in God of the Gaps is a fool. There are known things which exist that science knows nothing about. Science cannot discuss what may be in the far corners of our universe, or what may lie in other galaxies. Science cannot know what may have happened seconds before the universe began. Heck, science still can’t cure cancer, tell us all the species on our own planet, or even create a stable economy.
Science can never explain the metaphysical things in life, or measure things like love, hope, etc. So would it be right for me to say science doesn’t exist? Or would it be appropriate to accuse everyone of “science of the gaps” for anything which science can never answer?
Science Without God and God without Science
Science without God is like rice without the white. It is like peanut butter without the jelly. Like a map without the key, like a hamburger with no bun, like a code without a combination, and like a video game system without the controller. Science by itself is highly incomplete. It can explain the means of which the physical world operates, but that is its limit. Anyone who strictly sticks to science, evidence, and that which is observable is extraordinarily closed minded.
Science can never explain the “WHY.” It can only explain the “How” (or by what means). Again, science is a terrific tool. Science can only be (in my opinion), fully appreciated when it is experienced in the context of a creator.
To fully know God, you must fully know science. The more science that is discovered, the more we can know about God and his creation. We can understand how God did it. Science and God fit together in complete harmony. Like music with singer, like mashed potatoes and gravy, like cereal and milk, and like movies and popcorn.
Just the like example I gave in the article about the creatures and the Hadron Collider, the creatures may never believe in a creator. They may dissect everything in their physical mini-universe, and find a scientific explanation for it all. However, they would be wrong to assume there wasn’t a creator involved, even if they cannot physically touch, smell, taste, or measure this creator. And if man can create a mini-universe, how dare we suggest God couldn’t!
Conclusion: God of the Gaps Arguments Are Nonsense
Using an alleged “God of the Gaps” (saying God did it) argument by a religious person is perfectly fine in almost any context. God can be attributed to every single thing in existence–either directly or indirectly. It doesn’t matter if there is a complete scientific explanation or not. It all came from God, therefore, God can be attributed to any and all things within our universe.
I can quite accurately say “God did it” for any known phenomena in the world, and I would be accurate. It may not be fully complete without explaining the “how” behind it (using science). But it is still factual and accurate indeed. Not only is suggesting that God doesn’t a closed minded approach, but people have nothing to lose by believing in God.