The Bible vs. God-of-the-gaps

[wgreen]

I am not satisfied with a "God of the Gaps" approach in which we invoke God to explain phenomena which have not been successfully explained yet by science. It seems that whenever people have done this, science eventually comes up with a satisfactory explanation.

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

[QED]

Jose wrote:
I would ask, however, why you think that it is a metaphysical assumption that the physical world is, well, physical.

A quote from Davies and Gribben (The Matter Myth, 1992, p. 27):

"In the 1930's physicists were strongly influenced by a philosophical movement known as positivism, which seeks to root reality in what can actually be observed. The founders of quantum mechanics, notably Niels Bohr and Werner heisenberg, argued that when we talk of atoms, electrons, and so on, we must not fall into the trap of imagining them as little "things," existing independently in their own right. Quantum mechanics enables us to relate different observations made on, say, an atom. The theory is to be regarded as a procedure for connecting these observations into some sort of consitstent logical scheme--a mathematical algorithm. Use of the word "atom" is just an informal way of talking about that algorithm. It is a helpful means of encapsulating that abstract concept in physical language, but that does not mean that the atom is actually there as a well-defined entity with a complete set of physical attributes of its own, such as a definite location in space and a definite velocity through space."

(from http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhib ... intro.html)

If we add more to our definition of science, such as statements about matter or existence or reality, or cause and effect, then we introduce more assumptions.

Here are some additional questions:

Would anyone practice science without assuming that they were finding out how the "real" world "really" is (the assumptions of scientific realism, a philosophical position)? Maybe they would, but I submit there would be fewer of them.

Would anyone practice science if they did not assume that the world is orderly and predictable? It can be argued that science did not develop substantially until the Judeo-Christian worldview caused scientist to expect predictability (e.g. Galileo, Newton).

Can the scientific method be used to test the scientific method?

Is the reality of the physical world a "falsifiable" claim?

If I am a solely a product of the physical world, how can I judge the physical world. Can a ruler be used reliably to measure the machines by which it was produced? Only if there is an outside standard against which to check it.

The Philosophy of Science is foundational to its practice.

Yes indeed - it's the practice of something that has a very practical bearing on all our lives. The problem with arguing from the standpoint of an apparant symetry of physical and metaphysical beleifs is that it does not remind us sufficiently of the practical repercussions that such beleifs can have. While it may be cosily argued that theistic and atheistic beleifs share a perfect symetry, the real-world of our everyday experiences follows a particular path that respects no ignorance of it's methods.

If we are to ignore the concensus of those who compete to place the best interpretation on the practical phenomena that surrounds us using the standard scientifc method, preferring instead to be guided by alternative philosophies that simply by virtue of their logical construction are all capable of arbitrary interpretations (many of them bizarre - i.e. IPU), then we can expect to be taught a lesson by nature herself.

There is no assumption about whether God exists or does not, because--as you said--we are wholly unable to determine one way or the other. Scientists do tend to follow the general rule-of-thumb, in developing explanations, that simpler is better. Hence, in the absence of data that require invoking a god running the universe, no such god is invoked. This is not an assumption that said god does not exist. It is merely acknowledging that there is no proof one way or the other.

Scientists in general may not assume that God does not exist, but the materialist does.

It is not clear that assuming that rocks cause windows to break is simpler than a divine cause for all things. Is it simpler to imagine that several different forces and real entities all interact to cause the window to break, or that one God does it?

Thanks ,

Bill Green

Goddidit is a trivial answer, and has never advanced our understanding of anything. Understanding is essential if man is ever to emerge from our barbaric phase. If you can show me what progress has been made over the last 2000 years I might change my opinion.