The “God of the Gaps” is a way of thinking, relatively common in Christianity (but not only there), that says basically this:
“We don’t know how this can be, yet it is, so it must surely be the work of God…”
and, furthermore:
“… which proves that God exists.”
Once – before Christianity, in fact – everything was the work of the gods. Natural phenomena like rain, thunderstorms, even the passage of day and night… mankind didn’t understand how those things could have happened, so it created gods to explain them. A storm? The gods are angry. The sun moves in the sky? It’s a god dragging it with a flying carriage. Or the sun itself is a god, whose rival is the moon goddess.
Centuries later, Christianity was successful, and instead of many gods, there was one. Still, nobody in medieval Europe doubted God’s existance, and anything people couldn’t explain was both an act of God, and proof that God was real. So, nobody doubted for a while.
Except for that pesky science thing.
In time, some daring men began to investigate phenomena, and, incredibly, one at a time, a lot of those were finally understood. And they were shown to be natural – that is, requiring no divine intervention at all. The Church, of course, wouldn’t stand for it, and denounced those discoverers as heretics, but, after a while, they had no choice but to admit that, yes, what they were using as proof of God’s existence for so long was, afer all, completely natural. However, they simply retreated to the next unexplained phenomenon: “see, now, you don’t know how this can be! It’s because this is the work of God!”.
And that would repeat itself through the centuries. And it happens even today – many theists believe that the origin of life must be God’s work (thus proving that God exists), because science hasn’t (yet) explained every single, tiny bit of it. And every time a scientist says “this is still a mystery”, theists quickly arrive at the scene and announce that it will always be a mystery to science, because it’s not explainable by man – it belongs to the realm of God. And so it “does”… until it’s explained.
The problem with that logic is that it shows an inability – or refusal – to learn from the past. Let’s see, what if this happened to you:
1- We can’t explain A, so it’s surely the work of God and proves he exists.
2- We can explain A, but not B, which is surely the work of God and proves he exists.
3- We can explain A and B, but not C, which is surely the work of God and proves he exists.
4- We can explain A, B and C, but not D, which is surely the work of God and proves he exists…
… and so on and so on. Now, after some hundred letters 
, wouldn’t you begin to, you know, see a pattern there?
But that’s what God of the Gaps proponents are incapable of doing. They never learn from their past mistakes. They cling on to anything that science still can’t explain, no matter how small, and no matter how that puts their god in a bad light: the gaps have become smaller and smaller, and they’ll only shrink even more in the future, so what God’s “doing” isn’t very impressive after all.
Of course, a lot of Christians, and theists in geral, refuse the God of the Gaps mentality – in fact, the term was invented by Christian writers, who used it to warn their brethren against this absurd way of thinking. They have no problem with the idea of a God who invented a working natural universe, which doesn’t need his intervention or “maintenance” in order to keep going – and, also, they accept the idea of evolution. That is, surely, a much more sane way of thinking.
But more fundamentalist, old fashioned theists still reject evolution, believe in young-earth Creationism, and cling desperately to anything science can’t yet explain as proof that God exists. And these theists are dangerous: they’re the ones who despise science, who believe that the Bible is the literal work of God, and who encourage people not to think or question anything. They’re also the most active ones, politically, and the ones who wield more power. They’re the ones who say “evolution is just a theory”, who want to teach “Intelligent Design” in science classes, and who hinder stem cell research.
To them, science is dangerous, because it’s shrinking the realm of their god. And – incredibly – they seem to believe that an all-powerful god needs to be defended.
More about the God of the Gaps mentality:
- at Ebon Musings
- at Wikipedia
- at Way of the Mind, which you may have heard of somewhere.
No related posts.
Tags: christianity, religion
Subscribe to this blog
very well written.
if someone tries to argue agenst that logic.
I shall slap them.
I’m a Christian and a young earth creationist. However, I do not agree with the ‘God of the Gaps’ reasoning you describe. Perhaps you would be interested to know what I do believe. I believe that God is omnipotent and that everything in the world relies on Him for existence. Therefore, everything that happens is caused by God, even when it follows natural law. Put it this way: True Christian doctrine is that everything is a gap. Everything belongs to the realm of God, even when it can be explained by man. You see, most things that He causes are caused by Him the same way each time – So we call that way ‘natural law’. Science is really a way of describing how God usually does things.
(When use our God-given freedom do something, we’re really excercising His power, power that He lent us. That’s why sin is so bad.)
A proof for the existence of God that comes from unexplained natural phenomena really ought to be a proof from the existence of the universe.
As for the term ‘natural’ (meaning, as you say, ‘requiring no divine intervention’), I say that there is no such thing. I would ask you to explain to me how any sort of experiment done by anybody at any time could show that some phenomenon does not require divine intervention. Perhaps you could devise some experiment to demonstrate that a particular phenomenon was not affected by God. I would gladly repeat the experiment and confirm your results.
I would call your attention to the last few chapters of the book of Job, where God Himself addresses the question. Job has been questioning God, and God has appeared to answer him. God names a great many natural phenomenon, and asks Job if he can control them, or even understand them. If Job can master the created world, then he will have the right to question God’s authority. What God is saying is that when human science has filled in all the gaps (including, “How did the universe come to exist?”), then human science can prove things about God, such as His existence or non-existence, justice or injustice.
I don’t expect that argument to turn you suddenly Christian – I only mean to explain the Christian perspective on science. For a better treatment of the topic by a better thinker than me, you should turn to the General Scholium at the end of the third book of Newton’s Principia Mathematica.
Sorry to leave such a long reply.
Hmmm even though no one can be converted over the internet and I personally believe that lending your power to a political based belief structure is evil I truly cannot dismiss your reason. But make no mistake if there is a god you are going to hell, you lend your personal power ( your support ) to a church system which means your are partly responsible for their actions.
You wont agree with me just as the german masses blamed only hitler and not the support they gave him for that catastrophie.
You have obviously done alot of research into your religion so I cannot do anything but respect your opinion.
The simple truth is trying to prove that god dosent exist in reactions and etc is like trying to prove that the big bang wasnt a potato that grew to such amazing proportions that its own gravity compressed the potato building heat and pressure in the core untill it blew up.
I dare you prove me wrong. But if you use any sort of logic you would say thats complete bull.
Whats the chances really ok lets go through some points
1: He created us above all other creatures ( How nice )
2: He created us in his image ( It makes sense human rule )
3: He only works through belief ( How convientient )
4: Humans are smart enough to have made it all up ( Nah just silly aye )
5: He never reveals himself to the most devoted members of all religions ( All of them really, so god is the god of all religion )
6: He lets the church decide some of the rules to acess heaven ( Well they are just and nice to everyone )
7: He decides that some people have to blow themselves up to get there others do the opposite ( each to his own )
8: He just happens to be a male and have a penis ( Just a coincidence for a male macho dominated world )
9: He isint real, please whatever you dont lend support to a church or system. ( i.e. get a van tint the windows and umm “prey” )
on children
“What God is saying is that when human science has filled in all the gaps (including, “How did the universe come to exist?”), then human science can prove things about God, such as His existence or non-existence, justice or injustice.”
I feel inclined to point out that this stance only applies to those with a preconceived belief in God, thus the point is moot. Someone who doesn’t believe in God would have no reason to “explain” the existence of something they don’t actually believe exists ;o)
That would be like me attempting to prove the sky is red. It’s pointless, I have enough evidence to satisfy my belief that the sky is blue. It’s like trying to prove a belief *I* don’t even believe in the first place, if you will.
If my political party does something evil, I am responsible for it, and God will hold me accountable for it. I just try to vote for whichever party does less murder, but it’s pretty hopeless. Just living in America and paying taxes means you’ve sinned in about 500 different ways. In the eyes of the Lord, though, the sins I’ve committed are just as bad as Hitler’s – I do deserve to go to Hell.
I’m not going to, though. If you want to know why, I can tell you.
Anyway, at least we agree that it can’t be proven that God doesn’t exist, and it can’t be proven that He didn’t create the world. But I don’t understand… What sort of logic are you using that tells you that the Potato Hypothesis is bull? I think that whatever created the universe wouldn’t make any sense at all to a being who thinks entirely within the context of the existing universe.
And Gnack: I understand that you don’t feel the need to prove anything about God – His existence or his non-existence. I know you won’t believe me, but I think that your very life hinges on the answers to these questions. Don’t just believe what your eyes see or what the established intellectual majority tells you.
[By the way - I don't know about you, but where I live, a big chunk of the sky turns red every sunset
]
Love this site very interesting. I think that the “God of the Gaps”, is not restricted to religion. Scientists regularly have the same mentality but in reverse, instead of believing that the exsistance of God is proved by a lack of proof, they believe God’s exsistance is disproven by the presence of proof. Both are equally ignorant and close-minded.
We prove a which reveals b which we can’t prove… etc.
They both follow similar formats one where something gets proven and shrinks got and another where something is proved revealing something unproven and devaluing scientific opinion. Science constantly makes the mistake, when dealing with supporters of I.D., of adopting an omnipotent stance, which simpl serves to weaken their position.
Okkio: actually, scientists say nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of God.
Lack of proof does not prove the opposite. Therefore, by definition, the existence of God can never be disproved. It could be proved, however, if he simply showed up.
The God of the Gaps is simply saying “we don’t know how this can be” (true) and adding “and we’ll never know it” (how can you tell?), and “therefore, it’s the work of God” (just because it hasn’t been explained yet? What about all those times when you said the same, and it was something natural after all?), and, finally, “which proves God exists” (it might, if the previous two ones were correct…)
Yes ok maybe you dont deserve to go to hell.
But do I, I embrace no religion and I believe in nothing.
I have never cheated someone or stolen anything. I am nice to everyone I come across.
Can you live guilt free in heaven when I am burning for an innocently nieve decision.
If you can do you really deserve to be in heaven.
Oh and about the potato, its just a crazy example that I think is completely impossible.
Which in my mind shares the same possibility of a creator, you could say my mind is closed but I refuse to believe that the big bang was just a hot potato. And our all powerful being who loves all and created everything.
His name isint god, Its Goku.
now i am a christian and i have to say the thing a cant stand the most is over zealous christians i myself believe in evolution which pisses me off that most christians tottaly disregard the proof off of blind faith even more ive heard some say scientests are evil and decievers after hearing such a comment i had to refrain myself from punching the mouth that said such a ignorant thing.
now some people take the bible way to litteraly. which i believe is not the way to look at it. most people will say the bible doesnt say anything about it so its not true. often the only way to argue with such people is to say well “it never said it wasnt true”. which obiously sounds like a childish argument.
what i put my faith in is not blind faith i find logical explanations for things and when something is unexplained i dont automatically say AHAH thats god.
but i do find it interesting that such an elaborate series of mistakes that created life on earth all happend without outside force.
and the term “elaborate series of mistakes” is quoted from a well known astrologist.
i unlike most christians also believe in life on other planets. it is never even talked about in the bible. why do they automatically say “god” wouldnt do such a thing?
im sorry i suppose im getting of point but u get what im saying right?
i also think pedros previous comment is quite interesting
and in response to jenssen about the argument:
Can you live guilt free in heaven when I am burning for an innocently nieve decision.
If you can do you really deserve to be in heaven.
it is nice that you are a good person and sure… if what i believe is true when im in heaven… and u supposedly being in hell for a nieve decision i might have thoughts about not converting everyone i meet.
but the true belief of christianity is that god gave us a choice to embrace him i mean if he wanted us to… dont u think hed make us?
it is like this would u want ur son or daughter to love u because they want to… or because u force them to?
and only you can make that choice i will not attempt to make people disrespect my religion by cramming it down the throats of everyone i see
as i believe u wouldnt cram ur beliefs down mine. as such i respect your choice… also i am an american and full-heartedly believe in freedom of religion.
i do have a question though… if there is no afterlife why in the world do u feel like being a nice, good person, i mean wouldnt u rather try to have as much fun as possible cause well i mean u could die tommorow and what then? just curious?
Matt: I think your first post is easily the most intelligent thing I’ve read on this website. Bar none.
it is nice that you are a good person and sure… if what i believe is true when im in heaven… and u supposedly being in hell for a nieve decision i might have thoughts about not converting everyone i meet.
Nice
I laughed my ass off.
It’s that everyone has only the one life.
And everyone’s life is the most valuable thing they have.
And you should listen to tool; his songs are quoted again and again by philosophy universities all over America.
I don’t live in America though I live in New Zealand.
When you have too much of a good thing it numbs you.
For instance we all know when you have sex all time it gets really boring.
But a week without and your dieing for it.
That’s not my reason though.
I simply treat people how I would like to be treated.
u do have a point there.
have an songs from tool ud like to recomend?
and as for your last line
“the golden rule”
ok thx i just want to get another opinion
sober, disgustipaped and opiate are good songs about religion.
But there are no bad songs
Brayton, have you heard of Grammar?
On Topic: Very well written, makes me wish my school allowed senior students to do Religous Ed, I’d take that teacher down a peg or two.
HAHA… you know… never was my strong side. Most were typos i was either to lasy to check through or to lazy to correct though lol. my school actually does offer religious ed although the class itself is a joke. and the teacher, not so respectable.
[...] You don’t know how to explain something, so believe God must have done it. Once, we didn’t know the cause for a lot of things. Today, the last few remaining questions seem to be “how did the universe come to be”, and “what is the origin of life”. This is the God of the Gaps, of course. Much like ancient people believed that Zeus or Thor created lightning, and were wrong, it’s quite likely that these last two questions also have a natural explanation – and, yet, we still make the same mistake as our ancestors did: come up with supernatural explanations, instead of simply admitting that we don’t know, yet. [...]
arent we entitled to an opinion?
[...] I’ve just read a post called Dear Christians at The Indigestible (seen first at God is for Suckers). While the post is itself interesting, in my opinion, the best part is a long comment by Abacquer in response to a typical fundamentalist trollish comment, which is perhaps the best refutation of the “god of the gaps” fallacy I’ve ever seen. [...]
I really like this site! The fundamentalists and their doublethink also amuse me. You have a unique observational way of looking at things which follow a structured process and shine light on the idiosyncricies of the believers.
Almost every single thing you’ve spoken about in your articles I have thought in one way or another. Good to see it articulated.
The sad thing is that not a single believer will be converted by your posts – They’re too brainwashed. I’ve met people who are very intelligent and yet blind and accept the existance of a god just like a child accepts the existance of santa claus.
If a child talks to an imaginary friend past the age of say, 14, you would send the child to a psyhchiatrist and yet millions of intelligent and not so intelligent adults participate in this mass cultural delusion of religion.