In various discussions, particularly those who take the position of science versus God there is often reference to the idea that people "invented " God not only to comfort those who could not face the reality that we are really on our own- but to help makes sense of those seemingly inexplicable events that offer no natural explanation. So the idea is that the motivation provides the impetus and reason behind why we believe such fairy tales. Apparently.
Professor of Mathmatics, philosopher of science and Christian apologist at Oxford University- John Lennox explains the sin as follows:
Hence the term: The God of The Gaps.
As science has progressed and knowledge of the Universe at both a microcosmic level and at the macro level has grown enormously at an exponentially increasing rate we often hear this taunt; and it is often followed by the statement of faith in science:
But the person who follows God as we understand him in Jesus Christ is really concerned with knowledge of quite a different kind, it is qualitatively different. It is all the difference between mechanism and agency and they are not competing. While sometimes people have mistakenly offered "God of the gaps" type of arguments and sometimes someone has eventually had to come away red-faced, I don't think religion has this on its own. I think science has repeatedly faced the same experience and even go so far as to make a virtue of these errors.
This question of the qualitative difference between knowledge of mechanism and knowledge of agency can be demonstrated like this:
and again Lennox helps us out:
John Lennox concludes:
Quite often the Christian religion has been expected to stand in awkward silence and embarrassment when the history of geo-centrism is talked about. What many fail to realize is that the one who was bringing this new(ish) knowledge about helio-centrism was a believer. And the censorship of the church was conditioned by an unwillingness to go against what was then the ruling paradigm of the scientific community of the time. The Ptolemaic system for the most part had all the approval of the early astronomers. Even though there were conflicting accounts well before the overhauling of this idea. Science too can be tardy to change. One must also bear in mind that the historic stage was being set for a revolution of a different kind as the Church itself was long overdue for rejuvenation, later known as the Reformation. In short neither the Church or the scientific community were in the best of objective health.
Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science:
So science too, has problems of objectivity, even though it prides itself on making no assumptions. On the charge of using gaps in knowledge to make a case for God I like what Richard Swinburne says:
Richard G. Swinburne is a British philosopher of religion. He is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Over the last 50 years Swinburne has been an influential proponent of philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
Now, while we are on the subject of gaps in knowledge it occurred to me today that science too, or rather the scientific establishment employs a tactic into which they pour all of their unknowns, just as members of the church have from time to time conveniently offered "God of the gaps" explanations.
This black hole of science is the thing commonly known as "Chance".
"Chance" is the convenient, often unquestioned assumption that we live in a random Universe. And into it are poured all the things that science doesn't know. Well I guess one has to put one's ignorance somewhere!
The thing is how do we know that a particular event or events can be put down to chance? Is that simply a science stopper? How do you prove chance is a real state of affairs? Has the idea of chance been investigated and found to be empirically true? Is it not unfalsifiable? Is it not one of science's pet assumptions in the face of "I don't know"?
To my mind the evidence of a minutely ordered reality makes "chance" look a much smaller black hole than meets the eye. The fine tuning of the Universe, the language of DNA, the anthropic principle and a progressively cumulative case looks more and more like a setup to me. But then what do I know?
[1]: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/09/06/the-god-of-the-gaps/
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
Professor of Mathmatics, philosopher of science and Christian apologist at Oxford University- John Lennox explains the sin as follows:
“the introduction of a god or God is an evidence of an intellectual laziness: we cannot explain something scientifically and so we introduce ‘God’ to cover our ignorance.”
Hence the term: The God of The Gaps.
As science has progressed and knowledge of the Universe at both a microcosmic level and at the macro level has grown enormously at an exponentially increasing rate we often hear this taunt; and it is often followed by the statement of faith in science:
"What we don't know yet- soon will be"
But the person who follows God as we understand him in Jesus Christ is really concerned with knowledge of quite a different kind, it is qualitatively different. It is all the difference between mechanism and agency and they are not competing. While sometimes people have mistakenly offered "God of the gaps" type of arguments and sometimes someone has eventually had to come away red-faced, I don't think religion has this on its own. I think science has repeatedly faced the same experience and even go so far as to make a virtue of these errors.
"Science can admit it's mistakes- our ideas are not fixed like in
religion", we often hear.
This question of the qualitative difference between knowledge of mechanism and knowledge of agency can be demonstrated like this:
"Take a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone from a remote part of the world , who was seeing one for the first time and who knew nothing about modern engineering, might imagine that there is a god (Mr Ford) inside the engine, making it go. He might further imagine that when the engine ran sweetly it was because Mr Ford inside the engine liked him, and when it refused to go it was because Mr Ford did not like him. Of course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take the engine to pieces, he would discover that there is no Mr Ford inside it. Neither would it take much intelligence for him to see that he did not need to introduce Mr Ford as an explanation for its working. His grasp of the impersonal principles of internal combustion would be altogether enough to explain how the engine works. So far, so good. But if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of how the engine works made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false – in philosophical terminology he would be committing a category mistake. Had there never been a Mr Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand."
and again Lennox helps us out:
"Mr Ford is not to be found in the gaps in our knowledge about the workings of internal combustion engines. More precisely, he is not to be found in any reason-giving explanations that concern mechanisms. For Henry Ford is not a mechanism: he is no less than the agent who is responsible for the existence of the mechanism in the first place so that it all bears the marks of his handiwork – and that means the bits we do understand and the bits we don’t."
John Lennox concludes:
"It is likewise a category mistake to suppose that our understanding of the impersonal principles according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of a personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds the universe. In other words, we should not confuse the mechanisms by which the universe works either with its cause or upholder."
"The point to grasp here is that, because God is not an alternative to science as an explanation, he is not to be understood merely as a God of the gaps. On the contrary, he is the ground of all explanation: it is his existence which gives rise to the very possibility of explanation, scientific or otherwise. It is important to stress this because influential authors such as Richard Dawkins will insist on conceiving of God as an explanatory alternative to science – an idea that is nowhere to be found in theological reflection of any depth. Dawkins is therefore tilting at a windmill – dismissing a concept of God that no serious thinker believes in anyway."
Quite often the Christian religion has been expected to stand in awkward silence and embarrassment when the history of geo-centrism is talked about. What many fail to realize is that the one who was bringing this new(ish) knowledge about helio-centrism was a believer. And the censorship of the church was conditioned by an unwillingness to go against what was then the ruling paradigm of the scientific community of the time. The Ptolemaic system for the most part had all the approval of the early astronomers. Even though there were conflicting accounts well before the overhauling of this idea. Science too can be tardy to change. One must also bear in mind that the historic stage was being set for a revolution of a different kind as the Church itself was long overdue for rejuvenation, later known as the Reformation. In short neither the Church or the scientific community were in the best of objective health.
Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science:
"made several notable claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way; that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing accounts of reality which cannot be coherently reconciled. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full "objectivity"; we must account for subjective perspectives as well, all objective conclusions being ultimately founded upon subjective conditioning/worldview." (Wikipedia)
So science too, has problems of objectivity, even though it prides itself on making no assumptions. On the charge of using gaps in knowledge to make a case for God I like what Richard Swinburne says:
"Note that I am not postulating a 'God of the gaps', a god merely to explain the things that science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain why science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains. The very success of science in showing us how deeply ordered the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause for that order."
Richard G. Swinburne is a British philosopher of religion. He is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Over the last 50 years Swinburne has been an influential proponent of philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
Now, while we are on the subject of gaps in knowledge it occurred to me today that science too, or rather the scientific establishment employs a tactic into which they pour all of their unknowns, just as members of the church have from time to time conveniently offered "God of the gaps" explanations.
This black hole of science is the thing commonly known as "Chance".
"Chance" is the convenient, often unquestioned assumption that we live in a random Universe. And into it are poured all the things that science doesn't know. Well I guess one has to put one's ignorance somewhere!
The thing is how do we know that a particular event or events can be put down to chance? Is that simply a science stopper? How do you prove chance is a real state of affairs? Has the idea of chance been investigated and found to be empirically true? Is it not unfalsifiable? Is it not one of science's pet assumptions in the face of "I don't know"?
To my mind the evidence of a minutely ordered reality makes "chance" look a much smaller black hole than meets the eye. The fine tuning of the Universe, the language of DNA, the anthropic principle and a progressively cumulative case looks more and more like a setup to me. But then what do I know?
[1]: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/09/06/the-god-of-the-gaps/
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
