God-of-the-gaps

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

The myth that science has

overtaken religion in the business of

explanation...

God of the Gaps - before science

Explanations tended to be in

terms of the influence of

spirits or God.

God of the Gaps - before science

But note the subtle

distinctions regarding

different kinds of causal

explanation as in say Aristotle with his final,

formal, efficient and material

causes.

God of the Gaps - emergence of science

As yet no sense of the threat of

science to religion; indeed the fruits of science are often welcomed. Note Francis Bacon’s

idea of God’s two books: The Book of

Nature (God’s works) and The

Book of Scripture (God’s words).

God of the Gaps - is the growth of science now competing with the explanatory role

of religion?

The 19th cc saw a complex set of relationships

between the two modes of discourse

from easy accommodation, to deliberate warfare as some scientists strove to become

independent of the state-church power

brokers.

God of the Gaps - the myth of warfare and the increasing triumph

of science

Little room for religion as

science grows in understanding,

power and influence. The

myth that religion is in its last days

is promulgated by many as the final

stages of the triumph of the Enlightenment.

God of the Gaps - the death throws of God talk

Science will soon close this gap in

our understanding. God will finally have no role to

play in explaining anything.

God of the Gaps - in the future “Science Rules OK!”

There is no placefor religion in offeringexplanations. Sciencehas finally triumphed.

There is no role forGod as an explanatory

category.

But ...

This account is a myth.

•Historians of science have shown that it was simply not the case that the emerging modern sciences were seen to be at war with religion for a total dominance of explanations.

•Philosophers of science are quick to point out that only naïve positivist understandings of science claim a monopoly on legitimate explanations.

On not confusing types of

explanation•There are many different kinds of explanations, and

a number of typologies of them have been offered. A commonly used one is derived from Ennis, Brown and Atkins, and is frequently used by Poole. Explanations tend to fall into one of three different types:

•Interpretative [roughly answering Why? questions]

•Descriptive [roughly answering How? questions]

•Reason-giving [roughly answering What? questions]

Why is this Why is this kettle kettle

boiling?boiling?

Because someone wants

a cup of tea

Because the average kinetic energy of the water molecules is

sufficient for a change of state from liquid to gas.

Descriptive explanation - answers WHY? in terms of an agent’s

motive.

Descriptive explanation - answers a different

WHY? in scientific terms.

Both are valid. Both are valid. Different Different

explanations can explanations can both be true at the both be true at the

same time. They are same time. They are not rivals if the not rivals if the

import of the WHY? import of the WHY? question is different!question is different!

Reason giving explanations as to the origin of Reason giving explanations as to the origin of the universe may answer the WHY? question the universe may answer the WHY? question

in scientific terms such as the Big Bang in scientific terms such as the Big Bang theory, or they may be religious answers to a theory, or they may be religious answers to a

different WHY? in terms of God’s agency, different WHY? in terms of God’s agency, choice and purpose. choice and purpose.

WHY? is an ambiguous question. WHY? is an ambiguous question. This is one reason why the popular distinction This is one reason why the popular distinction between science and theology in terms of the between science and theology in terms of the former being concerned with the HOW? and former being concerned with the HOW? and

the latter with the WHY? is unwise. Both the latter with the WHY? is unwise. Both science and theology are interested in the science and theology are interested in the WHY?, but the questions receive different WHY?, but the questions receive different

answers appropriate to their different answers appropriate to their different discourses.discourses.

COMMON FALLACIES WHICH

APPEAR IN SCIENCE - RELIGION

DEBATESThis section is indebted to the lucid discussion of these matters by Mike Poole in

Explaining or Explaining Away, in Science and Christian Belief, Vol. 14 (2) Oct 2002, p123-142

1. The Naming Fallacy

•When a label is offered to do service for an explanation.

•eg. The question ‘why do things fall to the ground?’ is answered in terms of ‘gravity’. If this is a mere label then it explains nothing. It is a pseudo explanation. It does nothing more as it stands than label the phenomenon.

2. The Reification fallacy

•‘Reification’ is confusing a concept with a real object or cause. Labels take on a life of their own and are used as causes or purposive agents.

•eg. evolution; gravity; chance; nature when treated carelessly as if they somehow ‘decide’. Thus it is common to set, say, evolution up as a rival to God as creator. ‘Evolution’ explains away its rival thereby. That a seed automatically grows under the right conditions does not mean the process is necessarily unguided and wholly unthought out. (cf: Mark 4:27)

3. Preoccupation with only one type of

explanation.•‘Science’ is the usual candidate here. It is

interesting to note the preferred science for the best explanation (Dawkins - Biology; Hawking - physics).

•But religious folk do it too, reducing everything to God talk and ignoring the insights from other disciplines. (Exorcising the mental illness; praying for the toothache and not going to the dentist as well).

•Ask of so-called best explanations, ‘Best for what purpose?’ It depends on the question being asked.

4. Reductionism•There is a legitimate use of reductionism in

science when macro phenomena are explained in terms of underlying micro processes. This is methodological reductionism. It is ubiquitous in science and no threat to theology.

•The fallacy comes when metaphysical or ontological reductionism kicks in, claiming that a complex phenomenon is ‘nothing-but’ some account in terms of component parts. But the whole is greater than the mere sum of the parts. We call this emergence. Consider water being more than just Hydrogen and Oxygen and the point is rather obvious.

THEOLOGYTHEOLOGY

SOCIOLOGYSOCIOLOGY

PSYCHOLOGYPSYCHOLOGY

BIOLOGYBIOLOGY

CHEMISTRYCHEMISTRY

PHYSICSPHYSICS

MATHEMATICSMATHEMATICS

is explained by / nothing but / simply / just

5. The explaining away fallacy•Giving an account of the reasons for someone holding

a particular belief and then claiming that you have thereby explained away the content of that belief.

•eg. giving an psychological account of a person’s theism or atheism says nothing about the truth or falsity of either. There are a number of legitimate issues to separate out here:

•[i] legitimate grounds for belief;

•[ii] justifications for those beliefs;

•[iii] the truth or falsity of those beliefs;

•[iv] Whether those beliefs constitute knowledge, where knowledge is justified true belief (pace Gettier).

“... explanations answering different

questions are not necessarily rivals ...

The first moral, therefore, is that there is not just one single, the explanation

for anything which we may wish to have explained. There may instead be

as many, not necessarily exclusive, alternative explanations as there are legitimate explanations - demanding

questions to be asked.”

•Professor Anthony Flew - lifelong atheist who became a theist / deist in 2004. [Thinking about Social Thinking, Oxford: Blackwell (1985), p40]

6. The ‘no need for’ fallacy

•When privileging on kind of explanation (eg. scientific) removes the need for any other kind (eg. theological).

Peter Atkins in Creation Revisited

My aim is to My aim is to argue that the argue that the universe can universe can

come into come into existence existence without without

intervention, intervention, and that there is and that there is

no need to no need to invoke the idea invoke the idea of a Supreme of a Supreme

Being...Being... Sir Julian Huxley in Essays of a Humanist

...in the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer

either need or room for the supernatural.

...the only way of ...the only way of explaining explaining

creation is to creation is to show that the show that the creator had creator had

absolutely no job absolutely no job to do at all, and so to do at all, and so

might as well might as well have not have not

existed...track existed...track down the infinitely down the infinitely

lazy creator ... lazy creator ... (who) can be (who) can be

allowed to allowed to evaporate into evaporate into

nothing and nothing and disappear from disappear from

the scene..the scene..Peter Atkins in Creation Revisited p17

Charles Coulson in Science and Religion p9

If He is in nature at all, He must be there from the start,

and all the way through

it.

6. The ‘no need for’ fallacyIs this a Category mistake - confusing a divine

act of creation with the processes by which this may be accomplished?

In terms of methodology within the discourse of

science?

In ontological or metaphysical terms?

NO

YES

Professor Roger Trigg on Sociobiological explanations

The sociobiological explanation of The sociobiological explanation of religion seems to try to show why religion seems to try to show why

religious belief is held even though religious belief is held even though it is false. But if Wilson’s view of it is false. But if Wilson’s view of

religion is correct, a major decline religion is correct, a major decline in religious commitment would be in religious commitment would be

biologically harmful, and yet it biologically harmful, and yet it appears that sociobiology is appears that sociobiology is

encouraging this.encouraging this.

E. O. Wilson, the founder of sociobiology wrote in On Human Nature, “The highest forms of religious

practice, when examined more closely, can be seen to confer biological advantage.”

Roger Trigg

7. Type errors•This is where different types of explanation are muddled up. Coulson’s God-of-the-gaps thinking is another term for this.

...until recently one of religion’s ...until recently one of religion’s main functions was scientific; the main functions was scientific; the explanation of existence, of the explanation of existence, of the universe, of life ... So the most universe, of life ... So the most

basic claims of religion are basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific scientific. Religion is a scientific

theory.theory.

Richard Dawkins in a lecture at the 1992 Edinburgh international science festival.

Why is the dog fish Why is the dog fish like this?like this?

Because God made

it so

What time to What time to you make it?you make it? Any time you

fancy darling!

Few serious religious thinkers would agree

with this claim!

God-of-the-gaps

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.