The problem with the approach is that it is materialistic. When we Christians use the God of-the-gaps defense, we betray our underlying materialistic assumption: that nature has the power to operate on its own. Materialism is defined as “The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994).”
According to materialism, nature has the power to operate on its own. When we focus on the “gaps” in scientific understanding, we show that we think that there is no need for God if there is a scientific explanation invoking “natural” processes. We think that as long as there is an explanation that keeps with physical laws, then no divine involvement is necessary.
The Scriptures present a different picture.
Amos 4:13
For behold,
He who forms mountains,
And creates the wind,
Who declares to man what his thought is,
And makes the morning darkness,
Who treads the high places of the earth—
The Lord God of hosts is His name.
Note the present tense. He controls erosion and plate tectonics. He controls the wind (which involves solar radiation and the rotation of the earth).
Psalm 147:8—9
Who covers the heavens with clouds,
Who prepares rain for the earth,
Who makes grass to grow on the mountains.
He gives to the beast its food,
And to the young ravens that cry.
He controls the weather. He makes grass grow. Wait, I thought we knew what made grass grow. Plant hormones induce cell division according to the pattern dictates by DNA. But we are talking about fundamental cause here. Chemistry and biology describe, not explain.
Because the universe is controlled by a God of order, it functions in an orderly, predictable manner. It is no surprise that it appears to be “governed” by physical laws, and functions like “clockwork.”
It follows also that the same evidence for a self-contained, self-sustaining, cause-effect universe (proposed by materialists) can be just as easily taken as evidence of control by an orderly God.
It “seems” obvious to us that physical objects and events have their own “causal powers,” but this is only because of our experience. It does not arise from logic or necessity. David Hume has shown (plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/) that our idea of cause comes only from our experience. We have experienced the correlation of certain events, and expect that they will happen in certain sequences and relations in the future as they have in the past. This is “cause.” Of course, this is not what we often mean by cause. We usually mean that an event causes another when that event necessitates the other. The second event must happen when the first occurs. This cannot be proven by logic or science. Much less can it be proven that a given object or event is a sufficient cause of another.
The Biblical view is one of God as Cause. The materialistic view is one of Universe as its own Cause. Neither view can be proven. Both are accepted by their proponents as “brute fact.”
Which is more reasonable, that there exists a self-caused, self-sustaining, self-contained universe, or that there exists a universe created by an orderly God?
Of course, the question need not hang unanswered. We can bring other considerations to bear at this point.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these issues.
This looks like a great forum.
Sincerely,
Bill Green
You seem to be implying here (and I'm probably misreading you) that the fact that causation cannot be proven implies that causes do not exist. This is not necessarily the case, even, I think, in Hume's view. In the following I will assume you do not mean this.
. If 2) then I do not care – and good on you. If 3) then I do not know.
