A typical argument against religious belief goes like this: at some point in the past, human knowledge hadn’t advanced far enough to account for most of what we see in the world. For this reason, supernatural explanations proliferated. As science advanced, the gaps in our knowledge narrowed, forcing many of these supernatural beliefs into obsolescence. Naturalists acknowledge this trend and are justified in believing that we’ll continue to find natural explanations, and that the gaps will narrow even further. On the other hand, naturalists accuse believers of failing to acknowledge the trend and clinging to an embattled “god of the gaps” theory. This is how the argument typically goes, and here follow some of my thoughts on the matter.
Both gaps and supernatural explanations abound, of course, even to to this day. For example, physicists can talk about the state of the universe between now and a few fractions of a second after the big bang, but they can’t speculate about the state of the universe before then. Theists interject that this is the time during which god created everything. This is fine, since that explanation is just as valid as any explanation offered by science. Even so, we need to acknowledge two things:
First, it’s a mystery what happened during that time, and the explanations aren’t so much equally valid as they are equally unverifiable. That is, any explanation is conjecture. We simply don’t know.
Second, we might someday discover a natural theory to fill this gap. To be sure, we’re not certain a theory will be found, we’re merely justified in allowing for the possibility. Sometimes people fail to grasp this distinction. Physicists, for example, might discover a grand unification theory between quantum physics and relativity. The theory might subsequently reveal what happened during those first few moments, and even why the big bang happened in the first place. Such a theory may of course never be discovered, but then again maybe it will. In the meantime, physicists ought to allow for the possibility and pursue the question.
I don’t think these things disprove religious claims so much as they undermine the traditional epistemic basis for religious claims. Rather than becoming unbelievers when a certain theological notion is displaced by science, believers simply refactor the epistemic basis of their belief.* Or, if refactoring is too painful, they may attempt to wedge open the gap. This is reminiscent of Han, Luke and Leia, who, faced with the prospect of being squeezed out of existence, wedged a metal pole between the narrowing walls of the Death Star’s trash compactor. We all know what happened to that pole.
We can see this refactoring/resistence being played out by looking at the mystery of biological origins. This gap has narrowed considerably in recent history, but up until a hundred and fifty years ago it was wide open. The traditional (read: literal) doctrine of creationism filled the gap nicely, but when Darwin entered the scene, the gap started to squeeze shut. Accordingly, some have tried to combat evolution by wedging the poles of creation science and intelligent design between the walls. Others have abandoned the old doctrine and built new doctrines in less threatening places.
Let me reiterate that I don’t think shrinking gaps disprove theistic belief, as some assert. I think that, at most, they force theists to refactor their beliefs. At the same time, I think shrinking gaps justify methodological naturalism, which exists in a high degree of tension with theistic belief. I define methodological naturalism as distinct from metaphysical naturalism, or just naturalism as it is commonly thought of. In other words, where metaphysical naturalism professes certainty that natural explanations exist for everything, methodological naturalism merely allows for the possibility of natural explanations, as a matter of sound practice. As such, it’s one of the founding principles of modern science.
Strictly speaking, methodological naturalism is compatible with theism, but doctrines that concern “the gaps” are held with some degree of skepticism, simply because such doctrines have a habit of being displaced by science. The origins of human fallibility and morality fall into this category. Disciplinary fields such as evolutionary psychology, cognitive science and neurology hint at what may, in the future, become scientific theories about why we’re moral, or why we should be moral, or why we make mistakes and do bad things, or what “goodness” and “badness” are in the first place. Other gaps include the question of first cause and the mind/brain relationship. These areas are often considered the turf of doctrine, and it is these kinds of situations where doctrine risks running afoul of methodological naturalism and science in general.
* The term “refactor” is a programming term that means rethinking and recoding portions of a program’s code, without changing its overall purpose. The term, as it relates to life in general, means to rethink one’s approach, but not one’s overall goals, and includes a sense both tearing down and rebuilding.
June 28, 2007 at 7:41 pm
It seems that one must strike some kind of balance, or maybe suspension, between the natural and the supernatural. If your theology (explanation of the supernatural) destroys the natural, your theology has gone awry (so fundamentalism, much conservative theology). Conversely, if science (explanation of the natural world) destroys the supernatural, it too has gone awry (so atheism, naturalism, general secular modern worldview). This is most clearly distilled in Christology, both functional and dogmatic.
June 29, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Re: “Disciplinary fields such as evolutionary psychology, cognitive science and neurology hint at what may, in the future, become scientific theories about why we’re moral…,” etc. Granted that many of the ‘gaps’ throughout history have been filled by adequate natural explanations (not all of which are anti-theistic); but is it not true that some of the ’scientific theories’ that explain biblical assertions about morality, etc., are simply the naturalistic alternatives that must of necessity be formed because a theistic/biblical explanation simply would not do? In other words, since a theistic explanation is simply not acceptable, the only acceptable explanation is a naturalistic one. Just because a naturalistic or scientific argument can be made does not necessarily mean that it must be adopted. Just maybe, in fact, a personal and all-powerful Being DID create all things, and no matter what fine technical observations might be made about the physics of such an event, that act is responsible for it. This seems reminiscent of some aspects of the ‘reason bomb’ argument you spoke of earlier. It’s not a response acceptable to a skeptic, and so we’re not allowed to use it even though the core of a theist’s worldview is that there is a transcendent Deity, many of whose ways ARE beyond reason, which is a clear and specific biblical declaration. We’re not allowed to appeal to that? I recognize that sometimes apologists duck out of meaningful interaction with that tactic, but I strongly object to the suggestion that any assertion that there is a realm of knowledge or reality beyond what human reason can discover is unacceptable.
July 2, 2007 at 9:08 am
This is an interesting conversation. Gaps will always present the “need” to be filled. I believe that it is part of the human survival instinct. Our explanations help us fill whatever void that we have until we can come to whatever peace we need for the time. I don’t think though that the gaps get any smaller through time and uncovering, I think they just change into different gaps.
Using Creation as an example though, what does eventually happen [or will happen to some] is that people will reach a point that they might need to decide which holds more “truth.” Many Creation Science teachers often refer to this as the “slippery slope.” If they believe in a literal creation then all is well. That literal understanding makes for an excellent case for a literal and easy to use system to devise all subsequent theology. However, if they accept the possibility that God may have used evolutionary means to create, then that puts an entirely new spin on how they go forward with their systems. If “Adam and Eve” were not literal beings that were formed directly by the hand of God then what other gaps does this create in tracing back the lineage of Christ from the New Testament? What other gaps are opened in how they interpret the rest of the Bible? One has to know their own threshold of acceptability.
If they are able to live with the gaps then these issues don’t pose much of a problem. However, when the whole system is built on something that may contain enough gaps to make the foundation unstable, then this is where a more naturalistic explanation of things becomes necessary; especially in a day and age where the alleged miraculous occurrences found in the Bible are no longer commonplace.
I have a feeling that the majority of those who find themselves ultimately skeptical of what religion offers them simply still hold on for fear of what it could mean if the religion really is right. Religion has taught them that naturalistic reasoning is antithetical to faith.
I think that as people we are evolving quickly to a point where we no longer have such a need for religion in its current form. Although, there will still be many who are afraid of what the alternative to religion is; they’re afraid to try and live out what they already think.
In either case though, the gaps will still be there.
July 8, 2007 at 6:42 pm
“…if science (explanation of the natural world) destroys the supernatural, it too has gone awry…”
My point is that science can’t destroy the supernatural, it can only destroy faulty assumptions about the supernatural.
July 8, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“…but is it not true that some of the ’scientific theories’ that explain biblical assertions about morality, etc., are simply the naturalistic alternatives that must of necessity be formed because a theistic/biblical explanation simply would not do? In other words, since a theistic explanation is simply not acceptable, the only acceptable explanation is a naturalistic one.”
Well, yes and no I think. Science looks for natural explanations. So we have these notions called right and wrong, and science asks, “could there be a reason we have these notions?” It’s a legitimate scientific question. But it’s a false dichotomy to say that the explanation is either theistic or naturalistic; one to the exclusion of the other. At most, a scientific explanation of “why is there badness?” might force someone to update their theology.
“Just maybe, in fact, a personal and all-powerful Being DID create all things, and no matter what fine technical observations might be made about the physics of such an event, that act is responsible for it.”
In which case you’re removing the theology of creation to a place where it can no longer conflict with science. That’s what I’m saying. Science sometimes forces people to rethink their theology. I’m not trying to say that natural explanations disprove high-level theological propositions.
“This seems reminiscent of some aspects of the ‘reason bomb’ argument you spoke of earlier. It’s not a response acceptable to a skeptic, and so we’re not allowed to use it even though the core of a theist’s worldview is that there is a transcendent Deity, many of whose ways ARE beyond reason, which is a clear and specific biblical declaration. We’re not allowed to appeal to that?”
It’s just kind of a debate-ender, that’s all. If you can’t proceed using reason, debate is cancelled.
July 8, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“This is an interesting conversation. Gaps will always present the “need” to be filled. I believe that it is part of the human survival instinct. Our explanations help us fill whatever void that we have until we can come to whatever peace we need for the time. I don’t think though that the gaps get any smaller through time and uncovering, I think they just change into different gaps.”
Answering one question raises new questions. It’s not so much a game of whack-a-mole as it is that when a circle of light increases, so does the perimeter of darkness around it.
October 11, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Have you moved your blog to another location on the internet? I’ve enjoyed reading tonight– comments and replies, as well. You’re a good communicator!
October 12, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Thanks :) Nope, this is where it lives and will continue to live. I’m just really sporadic in my posts. Hopefully will get more stuff posted soon.