May 7, 2011

Science of the Gaps

Buon giorno. Almost seven months ago, I had an exchange with Zach, an atheist, in the comments of this post. (I also exchanged comments with an obstreperous atheist who only wanted to sneer, and I gave back what I was given. Interesting contrast.) Then, I continued the discussion by giving Zach his own post, so to speak. In essence, he wanted to know when believers stop using science and start inserting God as an explanation for observations.

I struggled with my explanation because sometimes it becomes difficult for me to put something that I know into coherent words that other people can understand. But I think I did reasonably well.

Since then, I have learned more about the faith of atheists. Yes, faith. There are presuppositions and conditions that many atheists use:
  • There is no God, that is a fact. No, that is a statement of faith. It also violates logic.
  • Everything must be explained through naturalism. This "rule" is essentially based on the above statement as well as a desire to control the discussion; it's my ball, I make the rules.
  • If theists can't explain something, they just shove in "Goddidit" as an explanation (a  "God of the gaps" approach). This attitude is based not only on presuppositions, but on ignorance and Dawkinsite conditioning.
  • Theists are stupid. When someone starts with that kind of arrogance, there is not much point in expecting to have a rational discussion.
Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason" had a recent broadcast that dealt with the "God of the gaps" accusation extremely well. Brace yourselves, people faint when I say this: He did a much better job here than I did a few months ago. He told a caller that when science runs out of evidence, scientists tend to use a "Science of the gaps" approach. That is, they have faith that maybe someday science will come up with an explanation for something that cannot be explained now. On the other hand, theists will use the available evidence, following where the evidence leads, and come up with a scientific explanation. Listen for the comparison between "event causation" and "agent causation". The clip (below) is about fourteen minutes, and definitely worth the time. Or you can listen to the entire podcast here. It's long, but has some great material, capice?

I hope Zach finds his way back here sometime and sees this article. Arrivederci! Belay that, I have an Addendum: Here is an article that is a good follow-up to this one.




Subscribe in a reader