God of the gaps — Science & Theology

 
      What does "God of the gaps" mean?

      When current naturalistic scientific theories (claiming to explain some feature in the formative history of nature) seem implausible, is this science gap due to the inadequacy of current science, or does it indicate a nature gap (a break in the continuous cause-effect chain of natural process) that was bridged by miraculous-appearing theistic action?  Sometimes, a theory proposing a nature gap is criticized by calling it a "God of the gaps" theory.  The pages below examine the theological questions above.

      Alvin Plantinga asks, "Precisely what is God-of-the-gaps theology?" and answers, "There is not anything that it is precisely; it is not that sort of thing."  He clearly explains what it "somewhat vaguely" is (it's a "watered-down semideism" that is not "serious Christian theism") and why "the whole God-of-the-gaps issue is nothing but a red herring."  (8 k + 9k)
      Allan Harvey explains how "the term 'God of the Gaps' is used in two distinct ways;... one usage describes a way to do science while the other describes a way to do theology. ... One of the concepts is tolerable (though dangerous) while the other should be repudiated by all Christians. ... These different usages often cause us to talk past one another in discussing God's actions in natural history ... [so while I'm reading a defense of one usage] I find myself thinking that they're missing the point, since what they're defending isn't what I mean."  (13 k)
      Craig Rusbult thinks this term [God of the gaps] should be eliminated from our vocabulary due to its imprecision — does it criticize a "gaps are possible" view (that is theologically acceptable for a Christian theist) and propose a "gaps are impossible" view, or does it refer to a specific historical theory (that should be evaluated using evidence and logic) claiming "in this situation a gap did occur," or an "always in the gaps" habit (of assuming a science gap is always a nature gap, which is scientifically naive) or an "only in the gaps" view (that is semi-deistic and is theologically unacceptable, so it should be criticized) — so the correct response is to ask, "What exactly do you mean by 'God of the gaps'?"  (9 k + 7k)

      David Snoke argues In Favor of God-of-the-Gaps Reasoning because "the standard argument against God-of-the-gaps reasoning deviates from the normal mode of scientific discourse [by implying that we should not consider the explanatory weakness of a theory], it assumes a view of history which is incorrect, and it tacitly implies a naive optimism about the abilities of science."  {also available as PDF}  (27 k + 3k)
      There will be responses by scholars who, like Harvey, defend some aspects of "God of the gaps" criticism.  I'll search for existing pages, or for someone to write a new page.
      Miracles, Intelligent Design, and God-of-the-Gaps (by Jack Collins) questions the wisdom of a claim that gaps are impossible (because God would never do it) and explains how to avoid a naive "always in the gaps" claim by being aware of the difference between "gaps in our knowledge and... genuine gaps between the properties of the components and the complex structure we are considering."  (29 k + 22k)
 

---

 
      GOD OF THE GAPS — CHALLENGES BY ATHEISTS

      The God of the Gaps by Adrian Barnett (6 k) offers a clever "heads we win, tails you lose" argument:  If there are no nature-gaps then it all happens without God ("Jehovah seems to be shrinking. ... [since] you'd hardly know a guiding intelligence had any hand in it at all, so good a job was done of making it appear natural") but it's wrong to claim a nature-gap (because "you are insulting the very omnipotent being whose existence you try to convince us of; to say that the world works perfectly well without divine intervention, except here, here, and over there, is to say that God is a pretty shoddy builder... he is incompetent").  This brief page is emotionally appealing due to its skillful use of witty ridicule, but the next page is more intellectually credible and interesting.
      Pay No Attention to the Deity Behind the Curtain: The God of the Gaps by Ebon Musings (16 k) begins with a conclusion: "I can imagine a world where God's existence would be an undeniable fact... [but] the world we live in is essentially indistinguishable from one in which there is no supernatural at all."  Then he describes an "always in the gaps" view — "wherever there are gaps in scientific knowledge, God is invoked to fill them... because we don't know any other way it could have happened" — and criticizes it by appealing to dogmatic methodological naturalism ("science, by definition, must rule out the supernatural") and avoidance of "only in the gaps" theology ("it takes God away from an active role in creation and consigns him to the gaps, where he steadily diminishes as our knowledge grows and those gaps shrink").  How should believers respond when we see that "area after area of the universe has yielded to scientific investigation, and nowhere have the telltale fingerprints of a god been discerned"?  A believer could "assume that God acts through natural mechanisms rather than ineffable miracles, and what scientists discover are merely the methods and tools he uses to create" but he suggests that "once a person has taken this step, why not take a further one" and ask "why it is necessary to believe in a deity at all?"

 

      GOD OF THE GAPS — RESPONSES BY CHRISTIANS

      How can a Christian respond to these "useless God" and "God of the gaps" challenges?
      Each of us should call attention to the fact that many properties of natural process are "just right" for a wide variety of life-allowing phenomena, ranging from the physics of sunshine to the chemistry of life.  For example, we have sunshine to warm our bodies and grow our food because natural processes produce a balance between opposing forces, in a cosmic tug-of-war lasting billions of years, with some forces constantly pulling the sun's fiery atmosphere inward, while other forces push it outward.  And life is possible due to the balance of forces — with chemical bonds that are strong enough, but not too strong — in biomolecules like DNA, proteins, and water.  When we see the many ways in which natural process is "just right for life" we can propose, quite rationally, that God has intelligently designed the wonders we see in nature.   INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF NATURE?
      This principle can be used to address the "boy who cried wolf" challenge — which is appropriate only if we adopt a semi-deistic "only in the gaps" theology — that God's activity "steadily diminishes as our knowledge grows and those gaps [previously claimed to be bridged by miracles of God] shrink."  How should theists feel when we hear a new "explanation of a mystery" by science?  Atheists want us to respond with sadness, as if "this is one less place where God is active."  But if we have a strong Bible-based theology, we can greet new knowledge with joy by proclaiming that "this is one more place where God is active in his intelligently designed natural process."
      Judeo-Christian theists who believe the Bible will believe that God can work in more than one way, so instead of an either-or choice we can have our own heads-or-tails argument:  when something happens by natural process, it happens due to God's clever design of nature;  but if occasionally there is a divine bridging of a nature-gap, this happens because God is powerful, able to do miracles;  and both methods of creation are reasons to praise God.   { In formative history, did a miraculous "if" ever occur?  Do "telltale fingerprints" exist in the history of nature?   METHODS OF CREATION — QUESTIONS ABOUT DIVINE ACTION   IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR DETECTABLE DIVINE DESIGN-ACTION? }
      More generally, we can ask:  What kind of evidence do we have for the existence and activities of God?  This evidence is examined in WORLDVIEW EVALUATION & CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (*) along with other questions, including "Why isn't God more obvious?  What does the crucifixion of Jesus show us about God and reality?  Is there evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?" and more.  {* apologetics doesn't mean apologizing, it's explaining the rational reasons for faith }
 
 

---

 
A theory that "everything in the formative history of nature happened by natural evolution" could be preferred for theological or scientific reasons, and it must be the unavoidable conclusion of science if science uses a rigid methodological naturalism.  Therefore, there are relationships between questions about "God of the gaps" and METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM.

• Due to space restrictions, many good pages cannot be included in this section;  some of these will be (when it's available later) in Additional Resources.
 

 

Homepage for ORIGINS QUESTIONS

  Search the Website

Whole-Person Education for Science and Faith   HOME Effective Teaching School Options Learning Skills Thinking Skills The Nature of Science Origins Questions World Views ASA