Atheism, Evidence and the God-of-the-Gaps

[Randy Carson]

The 'god of the gaps' argument refers to any question for which a definitive answer is not known, that is therefore attributed to god(s).  The example of lightning is pretty clear in this regard.  Until we learned how lightning is formed and why it occurs, a person could state that lightning was a supernatural event of some sort.  If doubt was expressed regarding his claim, he could ask if they had any better guesses.  Lacking clear knowledge of the nature and cause of lightning, one could fill that "gap" by claiming it was a sign from god.  Once we learned enough about it to dismiss god as a cause, it is no longer a gap in our knowledge.  God as a potential cause is no longer claimed, lest the claimant be thought mad or an idiot.

Tonus, thank you for your thoughts. It is nice to get responses when folks have something to say and can do so in civil tones.

The problem I have with your paragraph above is that it seems to rely on the inverse of the "God-of-the-Gaps (GotG); namely, the "science-of-the-gaps" (SotG). By this, I mean that in the past, people witnessed lightning, could not explain it, and attributed it to God (GotG). However, the assumption of many is that while we cannot explain everything YET, eventually, given enough time and resources, we will be able to explain most (if not all) of the material universe. This SotG position is that we'll get there; there MUST be a rational, scientific explanation for something that we do not understand today.

Well, that makes sense, doesn't it? Because science is concerned EXCLUSIVELY with material universe. But can science even begin to speak of the immaterial? God is pure spirit. He occupies no space. He is simple (meaning He has no parts). He is timeless (being outside of time). I'm not convinced that science can have anything at all to say about something that is outside the material universe.

It continues to be applied to any event or area where sufficient knowledge is lacking, such as the formation of life or the origins of the universe.  A lack of knowledge allows for people to make claims regarding those events or areas without having to provide evidence, because those who doubt the claims cannot produce a sufficient explanation of their own.  It continues to be unconvincing as an argument, in part because it's a poor argument to make, and in greater part because every time we answer questions about our world or universe, we don't find gods or spirits or the supernatural anywhere in there.  "I don't know" is not reason enough to claim that your hypothesis is valid.  "I don't know, and history shows that your claims never end up being the explanation" makes god claims inexcusable anymore.

I agree that there is a natural explanation for lightning and other phenomena of this type. I agree that epileptic seizures exist and that demonic possession is not the cause of ALL events of that type. However, would you agree that if a God outside of space and time chose to part the Red Sea by means of a strong wind that just happened to blow the water in such manner as to enable the Israelites to cross at precisely the moment they needed to, He could do so? Or that God could choose to use the processes of evolution to create man over the course of millions of years rather than doing so instantaneously?

Restricting God's ability to use His own creation for His own purposes would be like something like telling Henry Ford that after inventing the automobile, he couldn't use it to run to the store for some groceries for Ms. Ford.

You ask "how is the theist supposed to prove that god exists?"  Perhaps a more relevant question is "why isn't god taking care of that particular detail?"  How might god reveal himself so that no one could doubt it was him?  Erm... wouldn't an all-knowing god be able to figure it out?  It can't be that difficult for a fellow who spun a whole universe off of his fingertips.  Yet the best he seems capable of is the occasional cameo (these being so unimpressive that he finally stopped doing them a couple thousand years ago) and these days he's limited himself to bumps in the night and burn marks on toast.  It's just the sort of thing one might expect when you combine a non-existent deity with a comically superstitious species which is still scared by its own collective shadow far too often.

What you have not considered or are simply unwilling to concede is the very real possibility that God HAS figured it all out and this IS the best approach. I posted this in another thread, so forgive me for recycling, but there are only so many ways to say some things (and only so many hours in the day with which to write them):

God doesn’t force himself upon us. In fact, if he did, we would come to resent His constant presence – in our offices, in our bedrooms, in every aspect of our lives. Thus, he has given evidence of Himself which is sufficiently clear for those with an open heart and mind, but sufficiently vague so as to not compel those who are not open to Him. The French mathematician Blaise Pascal, put it this way:

Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

In other words, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see, and it is sufficient for rational belief that God exists.