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

[Randy Carson]

If God did this, then surely we would know he existed, right? Well, why wouldn’t this kind of evidence also be subject to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection? Just because we don’t know how a giant man can appear in the sky doesn’t mean there is no natural explanation for him. Maybe aliens or time-travelers are at work, deceiving us?

Even “low-key” evidence is vulnerable to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection. Some atheists say that if Christian preachers could heal amputated limbs, that would convince them God existed. But once again, aren’t we just taking a gap in our knowledge (“I don’t know how these limbs are being healed”) and filling it with, “Therefore, God did it?”

This argument contains a sneaky fallacy, or, perhaps, mis-definition.

First, let's talk about proof.  "100% proof" isn't going to be attainable for any statement other than the Cartesian "I exist."  I could be a brain in a jar.  But, hell, to become a theist, I (speaking for myself here) would not need 100% proof of god - that is, to be shown that it is certain there is a god.  I would not need to be shown that god is more likely to exist than not.  I would need to be shown that there is a not-infinitesimally small chance that there is a god.  Let's say, 1%.

Next, let's take this premise:  For any "event" X, either:

1. X is explainable with our current scientific knowledge (that is, explainable by purely natural processes that we are aware of).
2. X is not currently explainable with our current scientific knowledge, but is actually a natural, repeatable thing that obeys the laws of the universe (that is, X comports with a scientific, materialistic worldview, but we aren't currently aware of it).
3. X is not currently explainable with our current scientific knowledge, and that's because it's actually a miracle (that is, no consistent, complete scientific framework could account for X).

Events in category 1 aren't evidence for god.
Events that aren't in category 1 are either in category 2 or 3, but by definition we don't know which until scientific knowledge catches up.

TRJF-

Thanks for taking the time to post at such a late hour. I really appreciate that.

I'm interjecting at this point because I simply have to ask: Are you assuming that science can or will eventually catch up? And if so, how would it be possible for science to do so in the case of a genuine miracle which (presumably - you tell me if that is the case) science is not equipped to explain?

The God-of-the-Gaps argument is not that "every possible event that can occur will be a category 1 or category 2 event."  The God-of-the-Gaps argument is that "non-category 1 events are not sufficient (or even remotely effective) evidence for god unless it can be shown that it is more likely (or, even, there is a 1% possibility) that it is a category 3 event rather than a category 2 event."  That is to say: when something occurs that we can't explain right now, one can't reasonably point to it as evidence of god unless it seems to fall so far out of step with what we already know that it is logically more likely to be supernatural than natural.

Fair enough. Your definition requires far more precision than I feel is typically displayed when posters throw the GotG objection at me or other theists in this forum on a daily basis. But, to be fair, I will take this into consideration when I evaluate whether their accusations are legitimate or not - based upon this definition - in the future.

That aside, I suspect that most Christians would naturally argue that the unexplainable events in the life of Jesus do fall into category 3.

And here's the thing: if one wants to prove god, the scientific method should be one's best friend.  If something occurs that we can't currently explain, you should be trying to get a bajillion scientists together to figure out how it works.  If they can, well, our knowledge was just incomplete, and it was never evidence to begin with.  If they can't explain it after repeated tests and theories and decades of study, then it starts to become more and more likely that the event is a category 3 event - a true miracle.

Well, the gospels say that Jesus walked on water. It was repeated...Peter walked on water, too. Have scientists spent much time on trying to figure out how Jesus pulled that off? Maybe...but I'm not familiar with the research if they have. So, instead of admitting a possible category 3 event, atheists fall back on Plan B which is to attack the credibility of the report of the event itself. Where does this leave us?

I can't speak for everyone here, but seeing an amputee - who I know to have really lost their arm, and such - walk up to the alter, grasp the host, utter a short prayer, and regrow their arm in front of my eyes would be enough to knock me down to true agnostic.  Then we'd have to find another true believer, take them to that church, and see if they could do something similar (to rule out the possibility of the first person "cheating" with some kind of regeneration serum).  Then a third would have to do it in a different church (to make sure it wasn't some regenerative property of that church - although, if it was, testing could determine if it was something we could explain or not).  And if scientists couldn't come up with a framework for how it happened, couldn't duplicate it... then the odds that the event was a Category 3 event would be sufficient to constitute proof of god.

TRJF, perhaps if you saw this with your own eyes, you might move from strong atheist to weak agnostic...which IS progress. However, I have had numerous posts from folks here who have claimed that the miracles of this type (spontaneous healing of cancer and other diseases) which have occurred at places like Lourdes, etc. are actually somewhat common. They cite reports of similar events in India and places of this sort as evidence that cancer disappears all the time like that. Well, maybe it does. The point I want to make, however, is that even if you saw the regeneration of a limb before your very eyes, you might be inclined to look for a natural explanation (understandably so - the Catholic Church does, also, btw) because your presupposition prevent the possibility - even 1% - that the healing might have a supernatural or "magic" explanation.

If you disagree with that, then I commend you for being more open-minded than many others here. I mean that with all sincerity.