Browsing through Reddit, I found a link to this picture on Flickr, called “The Need for Answers“. Here’s the image:
The comments, both on Reddit and on Flickr, seem to understand the message in different ways. I’ve read some which said that the image was pro-theist, as it meant that “atheists have to explain everything and can’t see beauty”.
But I don’t think that that was the intended meaning. Partly because the “discussion” in the picture is familiar, but also because of a single sentence at the bottom:
Where do you draw the line?
Yes, it’s the old “God of the Gaps” argument.
The “God of the Gaps” concept is basically this: people use God (or gods) to explain what they don’t understand. It was understandable in pre-historic times, of course; there was no science, no way to know that thunder and lightning were natural phenomena, so our ancestors believed that the gods were angry. There was nothing on earth like the sun, a big ball of light and heat that moved in the sky… surely that was the creation of a god (or even a god, himself). Any phenomenon that wasn’t understood (and which ones were?) was seen as supernatural, the work of gods, demons, spirits, and so on.
The thing was, mankind did begin to explain some things as time passed. Science appeared and flourished, explaining what was formerly unexplained. And if something has a natural explanation, what need is there of a god? So religion “retreated”, as more and more was explained by science; religion kept to itself what was still unexplained: the gaps in scientific knowledge. “See, scientists can’t explain this! It is surely the work of God!”
Evolution was one of the biggest battles, because theists said, for centuries, that God had created the world, and all life on it. And yet there was a way for life to appear, develop and evolve, which didn’t need God.
It’s like in the picture: the theists explain something as an act of God. Then science shows that it was natural all along. But new questions arise, and theists “retreat” to them: “see, these are acts of God”. When those are explained by science, too, they retreat to the next doubts, the next areas still unexplained by science. Rinse and repeat.
There are still many things science doesn’t explain, and theists stick to those, almost guarding them with their lives. Those - no matter how comparatively few and small - are, to them, “proof” that God exists, because science doesn’t (yet) explain them. But, as I said, they’re so few and small… not a lot of credit for an “omnipotent” deity, is it?
For more about the “God of the Gaps” argument, see Ebon Musings, who argues this much better than I do. 
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Yes it is interesting to see the “evidence” presented for “Intelligent” Design - usually something which doesn’t quite fit into the established picture of the theory of evolution. Those who present it usually do not present any reason for ascribing God’s intervention to it, aside from the fact that it appears not to be consistent with what is coming from “the other side of the table”. I personally have no problem with theists who claim that God is behind everything and are content to believe that without evidence, rather than concocting pseudo-scientific garbage (ie, garbage that sounds scientific) to back up their claim. However, one cannot use God as a piece in the scientific jigsaw puzzle of cause and effect. At that point, science and religion have become confused.
This is not just a theist/atheist binomial. Man always felt the need to explain everything that surrounds us and therefore if Science doesn’t… then magic, god, supernatural or else does.
It is Human Nature try to explain everything, because of fear of the unknowledgeable.
Elektra: it’s more than that. I am perfectly capable of saying “I don’t know (yet)”. I don’t have the need to invent supernatural explanations for things just because I don’t know of a natural one (yet).
But theists seem to have that need.
You might be able to say I don’t know yet, that is already a skill that most humans seem not to have… but you never give up on finding an explanation, do you? That is exactly what moves science, the human need to explain everything. Theists just do it in another way because maybe they are afraid to find the scientific answer and it is much more easy and simpler just to say “It was God’s will”.
The odd thing to me about those theists who guard the remaining gaps is that it would seem they don’t understand what faith is. Faith is believing in something you cannot prove. Thus, whether we can explain everything with science or not should have no bearing on someone of faith because faith does not require proof.
It’s odd to me that believers don’t understand what it means to have faith and haven’t taken their beliefs to their logical conclusions. As I say (as an atheist), a faith unchallenged is no faith at all.
There seem to be a variety of types of Christian or theistic response to the advances of science - some modify their belief system to allow room for science to expand (retaining God as the prime mover), some simply deny the science or its validity. It seems that the latter is the sensible course of action if faith is to survive - if you don’t care that your universe is inconsistent, then you can assert anything at all without fear of meaningful contradiction. You could even teach science without evolution, most of physics, geology or astronomy and maintain that God created the world a few millenia ago. There is no challenge that can make any difference to your faith as you have already demonstrated to your own satisfaction that anyone who disagrees is wrong - just throw out the parts that don’t fit.
As the artist behind this image, I thank you for your written explanation. Of all the discussions I’ve found on the web regarding this image, yours comes the closest to describing what I intended to capture. Thanks!! Zach
Zach: this is almost like meeting a celebrity.
Thanks for the comment.
I find it a little interesting that the athiest side has less color than the theist side… not that the artist meant it… but still…. interesting.