God of the Gaps

God of the gaps is a theological perspective such that the gaps in scientific knowledge find their ultimate answer in God.  So those things that can’t be explained by science – that is, contemporary gaps in our scientific understanding – such gaps find explanation by appealing to God.  God fits into the gaps of what science can’t explain.  Things outside of scientific explanation are accredited to God’s miraculous or supernatural intervention.  Get it?  The issue with this God of the gaps argument is that it has been applied much too liberally.  Many of the things that were once accredited to God now have scientific explanations.  Just think about all the scientific advancements over the last several centuries.  Many of the gaps that once were attributed to God’s supernatural and miraculous intervention can now be explained scientifically. 

Pointing out that science has filled many of the gaps Christians once attributed to God is not actually a tangible objection to Christianity itself.  Many use this, however, in attempt to discredit Christianity.  They ask, “If Christians were wrong on this or that gap in the past that science has now filled, why trust they are right on this or that gap in the present being attributed to God?  Why trust Christianity or believe in God at all when science has proved it wrong so many times?”  Now look, being wrong about a gap in the past doesn’t automatically mean being wrong on a gap in the present.  Thus, each gap still needs to be wrestled with on its own merits.  But what I am concerned with is the underlining assumption that often drives this critique of Christianity—namely, that there are no gaps.  See, what does constitute a real and tangible objection to Christianity is the claim that eventually there will be no gaps in scientific knowledge at all—that eventually there will be a naturalistic explanation for everything that exists and no reason to appeal to God.  This very assertion was made in a recent article posted on the front page of Yahoo.  Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, claims “science will eventually arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.”  And he does this by attacking the God of the gaps theory.  “God’s sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe…there is less and less need to look outside it for help.”  The article concludes by suggesting that even though belief in God may no longer be necessary, “psychological research suggests that belief in the supernatural acts as a societal glue and motivated people to follow the rules.”     

Reading this article fired me up enough to want to outline a few problems with the perspective presented in this article.  The first is that despite the assertion that science will eventually be able to explain everything, those holding to this position accept all kinds of things that lack scientific explanation.  For instance, you can’t scientifically quantify or prove the nature of love or trust or hope.  And yet, naturalists accept these things as self-evident or at least live as if they do.  They might say something like, “My wife knows that I love her.”  Really?  Can you prove that?  Can you be epistemologically certain?  Prove it to me using the scientific method.  Can’t be done.  When you really get down to it, very little can be proven with 100 percent certainty.  You can look at various arguments and evidence and place your faith in that which seems most rational.  But this much is sure.  Despite every effort to eliminate the role of faith, at the end of the day even the most committed naturalist still exercises faith all the time. 

The second issue – and now we return to the topic of God of the gaps – is that despite the claim that science will eventually be able to provide explanation for everything, I find this faith-filled statement highly unlikely.  Part of the problem with the way the God of the gaps has been applied in the past, as I alluded to earlier, is that it was applied too liberally.  Too many scientific unknowns found their answer in God.  But what if there is a different criteria for determining a legitimate gap—a legitimate miracle or act of the supernatural?  One would certainly be the lack of a supernatural explanation in the present.  But in addition to that, there should be both good reason to think that a naturalistic explanation is impossible as well as reason to think that a supernatural explanation is likely.  Given this criteria there are at least three gaps that I submit science will never be able to provide adequate explanation such that God is no longer necessary. 

1).  The Origin of Matter – Why is there something rather than nothing?  If nothing came first, then how did something come from nothing?  You can’t explain this without the nothing becoming something.  And nothing can’t become something without contradicting the basic scientific principle of causality.  There are theories, of course, but I find trusting in such theories requires more faith—not less—than believing in a loving Creator.    

2).  The Origin of Life – Just consider what is required for life to form and I would submit it takes greater faith to believe it happened by chance than a God who created it all.  The probability of having the right kind of galaxy, the right kind of planet, the right kind of star, and so on is incredibly unlikely (1 in 10¹²⁷).  Yes, other theories exist ( ex. parallel universe theory).  But, again, my argument is that trusting in such theories requires more faith—not less—that believing in a loving Creator.    

3).  The Origin of Human Morality & Rationality – What separates human beings from other living things is an increased rationality and morality.  How did that jump occur?  This simply can’t be explained from a naturalistic point of view.  Sure, atheists have morals.  They just don’t have an adequate explanation for why they hold to their morals.  Without God you can talk all day about what would be wise to do in a particular situation or what makes good sense in this or that instance, but you can’t arrive at moral obligation.  Where did we derive our sense of right and wrong? 

I do think there will be certain gaps science will never have adequate explanation to fill.  But I also don’t want to fear scientific advancement.  At the end of the day, all truth is God’s truth.  And my own perspective is that scientific advancements more often confirm rather than contradict my belief in the God of the Bible.