5.4 Science can explain everything, so we don’t need a God

Published by 1c15 on 14th December 201914th December 2019

The claim: Science will one day explain everything, so we don’t need a God” says the naturalist. God is just everything a culture cannot understand. This is the God of the gaps theory. For example, prior to an understanding of weather, some described thunder and lightning as the audible voice of God. An eclipse may have symboled greater wrath etc. As science progresses we will be able to explain everything just like these phenomena, just like the resurrection, so the God of the gaps appeal will disappear.

1. God of the gaps explanations in the past no more undermines current arguments for God than discarded scientific theories and medical beliefs undermined today’s science and medicine

The mistakes in each should only drive us to more careful theorising in the future.

2. The criticism that God is simply a way to explain unknown phenomena commits the informal logical error known as the genetic fallacy

Remember, this occurs when it is assumed that discovering how a belief originated (e.g. God of the gaps) is sufficient to explain the belief. However it is a fallacy because it attacks the origin of a view instead of the view itself, which could still be correct. For example, some Romans may have thought Jupiter was responsible for their victory over the Gauls, does not nullify the historical factuality of the battle or Rome’s great victory. 

3. What we already know from respected disciplines like medical science, history and psychology is precisely what renders the conclusion of Jesus’ resurrection so compelling. 

Conversely, these same disciplines disprove natural explanations of the event. Without a workable opposing theory, the sceptic must be careful not to substitute a “naturalism of the gaps” view. This occurs when critics have little ground on which to oppose the resurrection, yet they conclude that it still could not have happened (which is mere denial). Or they simply refuse to believe in spite of not having a viable counter response. We must not suspend judgement when adequate evidence is available to make a decision. The resurrection challenges natural laws and there is no way to incorporate it within nature.

4. It’s an unjustified leap to claim that science will find an answer for the resurrection of Jesus. 

This could be said for almost anything. For example, would it be permissible for someone to proclaim that at some undisclosed future point we will overturn some well founded scientific or historical position and then begin acting as if this hope already is reality? Miracle claims are always subject to future investigation so what’s the issue?If the resurrection is attacked at some future date, Christians will research and respond accordingly, as they have always done for 2,000 years. In the meantime we should not rule the possibility of the resurrection without viable reason.