The "God of the Gaps" and Complacency

When religious discussions are taking place, topics such as the origin of life and the origin of the universe often arise. Theists habitually see these topics as troublesome for atheists since our species has not yet acquired definitive answers for questions such as “What caused the Big Bang?” and “Exactly how did life first originate?” When an atheist in engaged in rhetoric with a theist---who is usually a Christian or Muslim---the theist will commonly attempt to take the atheist down a roller coaster of questions, all of which are inextricably linked to the one asked before it. A few examples of these questions are:

1. If there really is no god, then how did we get such a diverse array of life here on Earth?

2. If the diversity of life we have here on Earth was brought about by evolution, then how did evolution get started?

3. If evolution started with one cell, then where did that cell come from?

And the list goes on.

They often think that by attempting to take the atheist down a never-ending hierarchy of questions regarding the origins of everything, they can somehow make their point stronger. Their underlying motive is that by finding something that has not yet been explained by science, they can make a stronger case for a higher power, particularly their higher power. When they question a non-believer about the origin of life or the cause of the Big Bang, and the non-believer gives the honest answer of “That is not yet known,” they typically feel as though they have put the non-believer in checkmate. They operate under the rationale that pointing out an unknown equates total victory for themselves in an argument.

Before I go further, let me be upfront and state that I feel a little strange in offering a critique of this tactic, because I used to employ it myself back when I argued for Christian theism. Perhaps the reason why I felt it incumbent upon myself to address this matter is that it reminds me a little of how I used to see the world. Be that as it may, I wanted to confront this tactic because it is used quite often, because it isn’t a good way to argue, and because many people appear to see it as a very cunning and highly effective way to make a case for a deity.

First, I would like to talk about the general logic behind this tactic, and then I will talk briefly about a state of mind that this tactic helps enforce. The ultimate reasoning behind asking for the origins of life and the universe is this: If we can’t explain it in naturalistic terms, then it must be the work of God. We don’t know exactly what caused the Big Bang, so that means that God must have done it. At this point in time, we don’t know exactly how life first came about, so that means it couldn’t have happened naturally and that God must be responsible for everything. At this point, such reasoning might still seem sound to some people. However, try applying this reasoning to something else, such as the topic of germs and diseases.

Before the 1800s, people did not know that germs caused diseases. People attempted to explain diseases with numerous possibilities. Prior to the discovery of germs, a few of the common explanations for diseases were sin, divine wrath, evil spirits, and bad body humours. People attempted to heal sick people with numerous treatments, many of which were magical in nature. People hundreds and thousands of years ago did not know exactly what it was that made people sick, therefore they guessed the causes, and some of the guesses became accepted as truth. These explanations may have seemed sufficient at the time. However, they were far from being accurate, as was later pointed out by Louis Pasteur. Imagine the following conversation taking place in the times before germs were discovered.

“Hey, you know what? I don’t think diseases are caused by spirits, God’s anger, or anything magical.”

“Oh really? And why is it that you say that?”

“It just seems more reasonable to say that there is a natural explanation. We‘ve found natural explanations for other things, why can‘t there be a natural explanation for sickness, too?”

“Well, no natural explanation has ever been found, so that shows that people get sick because of evil spirits.”

Surely, everyone must see the problem here. In the above hypothetical, the believer in magic maintained that since no natural explanation had yet been found for diseases, then a supernatural answer would suffice. Theists who use science’s current lack of answers regarding the origins of life and the universe are utilizing the same type of reasoning. They are saying that since we do not yet know the answers to these questions, then there must be a supernatural explanation, and that supernatural explanation is God. Essentially, what they are doing is inventing an answer to a question instead of looking for an answer. This is not only illogical, but it is also unfavorable to the progression of science, mainly because it stunts our quest for knowledge by making us complacent with not knowing things. And on that note, I will segue into the topic of complacency.

Complacency, defined as self-satisfaction with unawareness, is rarely a good thing. It isn’t always harmful to our lives or our overall well-being, but it isn’t very often a good thing. Imagine if people before the 1800s, remained complacent with not knowing exactly what caused diseases. We never would have discovered germs, and we never would have developed adequate treatments and cures for any diseases, and consequently, our life expectancies probably would be lower than they presently are. Granted, complacency regarding the origins of life and the cause of the Big Bang may not have the same effect on our species as complacency in regards to the cause of disease. Nonetheless, arbitrarily attributing divine explanations for things we have not yet explained breeds feelings of complacency. It enables us become satisfied with not knowing the things we do not know. To some, this may not sound like a big deal, and perhaps it isn’t as big of a deal as some might make it out to be. But consider this. When we discovered germs, we were able to develop better treatments for them. In other words, one discovery led to even more discoveries. If we discovered the origin of life, where would that take us? If we found out what caused the Big Bang, where could we go from there?