It is a fairly common perception that science and Christianity are at odds, that one cannot accept the fundamental claims of Christianity and simultaneously accept the scientific consensus in many cases. Of course, I disagree with this idea, but I would like to argue that one of the main reasons for this perception is the way in which Christians have gone about defining the role of God in the universe.
I’m referring to what is known as the “God of the Gaps” argument. Essentially the argument states that if we don’t understand it, God must have done it. A moment of reflection will reveal that a lot of us likely have slipped rather easily into using this kind of argument from time to time. We don’t know what caused the beginning of the universe: therefore, God must have done it. We can’t explain how DNA came to be: therefore, God must have created it. Of course, I do believe God is the cause of the universe and likely is the source of DNA. But simply asserting these things doesn’t make a good argument or establish God as the cause.
The problem with using gaps in our knowledge as evidence for God is that as our scientific understanding increases, there are fewer and fewer gaps. A long time ago, very little was understood about the world, and many things were attributed to one or more gods. Phenomena such as thunder and lightning were believed to be signs of the gods’ anger, while abundant rain and healthy crops were thought to indicate their favor. But throughout history, as we advanced in our understanding of the natural causes behind such things, it was no longer necessary to invoke divine intervention in order to explain them. As some have put it, as we explain more and more of the gaps in our understanding, there are fewer and fewer places for God to “hide”. Eventually, they suppose, there will be no more gaps; and what would this mean regarding God? Perhaps there would no longer be any reason to believe in Him?
If we simply invoke God as the answer to all questions that have not yet been answered, we would have good reason to fear scientific progress, since each new discovery would chip away at our reasons for believing in God. And it seems there must be something wrong with a viewpoint that discourages and even fears scientific progress. Is there a way around this problem?
I believe there is. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford, points out that there are different types of explanations that are not mutually contradictory. With this argument he dispels the idea that if science can explain it, God must not be behind it. For example, what is the explanation of the automobile? If you answer “internal combustion”, you would be correct. But if you answer “Henry Ford”, you would also be correct. Each is a legitimate answer that doesn’t negate the other. The difference is that one pertains to mechanism, and the other to agency. Both are needed ultimately to understand everything there is to know about the car engine.
Therefore, saying “God did it” is not really an explanation of how it was done, and therefore, belief in God does not negate the need or motivation to continue working to discover the secrets of the universe that remain a mystery to us. But this also means that we need not fear discovery of the mechanism behind what we observe in the universe. We now know, for example, the meteorological conditions in which snow forms, and that it isn’t kept in storehouses as is stated in Job 38:22. We are free to understand verses such as this as metaphor, poetry, or symbolism, and be fully open to a complete scientific explanation of a particular phenomenon, without letting go of the idea that God ultimately is behind it all.
The God of the Gaps mentality must be avoided because it sets belief in God on a weak foundation. We should not believe in God merely because there are things we don’t understand, and we must be careful not to give anyone the impression that this is the case. If we define God as the explanation behind the things that we don’t understand, we are forced to choose between science and God. The implication is that once we have determined how something works, God is no longer necessary. But, as John Lennox has said: “God is not merely the creator of the bits we don’t understand; He’s the author of the whole show!”
No comments:
Post a Comment