Moving Beyond the Gaps
Bridging Faith and Knowledge
Introduction
Throughout history, the relationship between science and religion has sparked intense discussion. For centuries, people have turned to faith, both in the presence and absence of scientific explanations. Today, however, with the rapid advancement of scientific knowledge, many argue that belief in God is becoming increasingly irrelevant, often framed within the concept of the "God of the gaps"—where faith is seen as a means to fill the voids left by scientific ignorance. Yet, this perspective oversimplifies the intricate ways in which faith and knowledge intersect. In this article, we will explore how the concept of God extends far beyond merely filling gaps in scientific understanding, highlighting how faith and reason can coexist and complement each other within a broader, more holistic worldview.
The Definition
The ‘God of the gaps’ concept claims that when ancient people did not understand the actual reasons behind certain phenomena, they ascribed them to an invisible deity, or God. Citing examples such as the striking of lightning and the affliction of sickness, they claim that people at the time, due to their ignorance of the actual scientific causes, resorted to utter submission to imaginary deities, to whom they showed reverence and paid allegiance. But, proponents argue, equipped as we are with modern empirical scientific knowledge, we now know far better about the underlying mechanisms and scientific causes behind such phenomena and therefore are in a better position to understand, and subsequently reject the premise of the existence of God. Now, more than ever before, they say, we can confidently put our faith in ‘science’ alone and abandon the archaic beliefs and practices which we had once held on to.
The Origins: Misunderstandings in Historical Context
The "God of the gaps" argument emerged initially within certain segments of the secular camp as a critique of what they perceived to be a religious tendency to attribute unexplained natural phenomena to divine intervention, particularly, in light of the advancement of scientific understanding in the latter centuries. While such tendencies may have existed within certain theological groups, the broader understanding stood in clear opposition to this claim, highlighting that the critique rests largely on a misconception. And although the responses to this critique came from various religious traditions, since the argument was advanced from Europe, it seems fitting to highlight some dissenting voices from there too.
Henry Drummond, a 19th-century theologian, for instance, explained that since God was working through all natural processes, it is foolish to seek God "in the gaps" of scientific knowledge. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a 20th-century theologian, shared the same sentiments, warning that grounding belief in God on gaps in knowledge was dangerous, as these gaps inevitably shrink with scientific progress. Both emphasised that God should not be confined to areas of ignorance but understood as foundational to all existence.
The Misconception: Faith Misunderstood
The primary misconception behind this argument is the assumption that people of faith invoke God only to fill gaps in scientific understanding. This notion is flawed from the very outset, reflecting a misunderstanding of both faith and the concept of God. Consider, for example, an engineering feat such as the Burj Khalifa. Even if a group of scientists and engineers explained every minute detail of its structure and design from a technical perspective, would that negate the existence of the architect and engineer who conceptualised and designed it? On the contrary, wouldn’t a deeper understanding of the intricate mechanisms behind such an architectural marvel further affirm the presence of an intelligent mind behind its creation?
A Complexity Comparison: The Architect Analogy
The Burj Khalifa too, while impressive, is not an ideal comparison in this context, as anyone with a basic understanding of biology can appreciate that a single cell of a bird, plant, or human is millions of times more complex and exhibits a far greater degree of intricate design than this architectural structure. Indeed, biologists have often likened a single cell to a fully functioning, bustling metropolis like London. However, they caution that while this analogy too is useful for educational purposes, it is an oversimplification, as even microscopic cells are far more dynamic and complex than any human-made system.
Challenging Superstitious Beliefs
This misconception has likely been perpetuated by Western media, which often portrays primitive societies ascribing natural phenomena to divine forces. In one recent movie, for instance, a community is depicted halting human sacrifices after witnessing a solar eclipse, interpreting it as a sign of divine intervention. Such portrayals reinforce the idea that religious belief stems primarily from ignorance of natural causes, suggesting this as the foundation of all religious beliefs. However, this tendency sharply contrasts with the teachings of the Prophets, whose mission was to guide people from the darkness of superstition to the light of knowledge.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), for instance, exemplified this by decisively refuting superstition-driven beliefs. When a solar eclipse occurred in his time and people attributed it to the passing of his son, Ibrahim, the Prophet (pbuh) firmly rejected this notion, stating:
'The sun and the moon are two signs from the signs of Allah; they do not eclipse on the death or birth of anyone.' [Bukhari: 1042/1044]
This incident underscores the importance of a rational approach to understanding natural phenomena and emphasises that belief in God is not contingent on gaps in knowledge but rather on a deeper, and a more comprehensive worldview.
The Extent of Truth: Broader Contexts
The 'God of the gaps' concept may hold true for certain communities that lacked exposure to revealed scriptures and the guidance of Prophets. However, to claim that this concept underpins all belief in God is, at best, misleading and, at worst, deceptive. Imagine, for instance, a group of villagers living in a remote part of the world, who rely on charlatans for their medical remedies due to the absence of genuine alternatives. Does their misguided reliance on these dubious practitioners imply that genuine medicine and qualified medical practitioners do not exist elsewhere in the world? Does it prove that other societies elsewhere are unaware of authentic medical expertise, and are not seeking genuine solutions? To isolate one segment of reality and generalise it as a universal truth is both dishonest and harmful.
Mechanical vs. Ultimate Cause
It is also crucial to distinguish between the mechanical explanation of a process and its ultimate cause. The Qur'an beautifully illustrates this distinction in the following verse:
'Do they not see the birds above them with wings outspread and folded in? None holds them aloft except the Most Merciful. Indeed, He is the observer of all things.' (Qur'an 67:19)
As can be seen, this verse acknowledges the mechanics of flight—the spreading and folding of wings—as the apparent cause of a bird's ability to fly. However, it also draws attention to the ultimate cause that sustains this process: God Himself. This perspective integrates observable phenomena with its underlying mechanism within a broader framework that transcends material explanations, emphasising that even the laws governing nature operate under divine will.
Is Theism Based on a Single Premise?
It is evident to anyone with a basic understanding of theology that the 'God of the gaps' argument is fundamentally superficial. And that is because the argument rests entirely on a single, flawed premise, as established earlier. Furthermore, this position completely overlooks other theological arguments. While the preceding paragraphs should be sufficient to dismantle this argument entirely, let’s briefly consider a few more points that will help dispel any lingering misconceptions.
Belief in God is due to a range of reasons, including philosophical arguments and historical evidence; it is not based simply on gaps in scientific knowledge, as is commonly presumed. To assert this would be an egregious misrepresentation of the theistic understanding of God. Furthermore, many aspects of our existence are beyond the scope of empirical science, such as the origin of the universe, the nature of consciousness, human emotions, spiritual experiences and objective moral values. These are metaphysical questions that cannot be resolved by empirically-driven scientific methods.
Another point to note is that science, while undoubtedly powerful, has its limits. Science deals with the natural world while the metaphysical is beyond its scope of inquiry. The assumption that science will eventually explain everything seems more like a forced attempt to extend scientific capability into areas where it is not applicable.
The Irony: Materialism of the Gaps
Critics who advance the 'gaps' argument ironically commit a 'gaps' fallacy themselves. In doing so, they inadvertently acknowledge gaps within the materialist perspective, relying on the assumption that these gaps will eventually be resolved through scientific discovery. This approach can aptly be described as 'materialism of the gaps' or 'science of the gaps.' The irony lies in a dogmatic adherence to scientism—the belief that science is the sole valid form of knowledge. It is important to note that theism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Theistic belief is rooted in a holistic worldview that embraces multiple forms of knowledge, including science.
Conclusion
The "God of the Gaps" objection argues that belief in God arose from attributing unexplained natural phenomena to deities. As science explains more, these "gaps" shrink, supposedly making belief in God obsolete. However, this critique misunderstands theistic beliefs. Theists often define God as the ultimate cause of existence, not just a deity explaining specific natural events. Even if science explains every natural phenomenon, the question of why the universe exists at all remains. God, defined as pure existence or the simplest explanation for reality, addresses this broader question. And it is here that the "God of the Gaps" argument fails because it conflates explaining specific phenomena with addressing the cause of all existence.
Recommended Reading: