Another Look at “God of the Gaps” (Following the Discovery of Radiation from the Big Bang)
With God’s help
Israel Hayom – 2014
In recent days we have learned of an important scientific discovery. Further empirical confirmation has been obtained for the Big Bang theory, along with the first confirmation of the phenomenon of gravitational waves, foreseen by Einstein almost a century ago. Unsurprisingly, the Pavlovian instinct in our public discourse immediately raises the question of God’s existence. Every time something new is discovered about the process of creation and the emergence of life, believers see the new finding as yet another confirmation of their position (and of course also as a marvelous fit with the biblical account), and atheists do the same (science, thank God, continues to edge faith out). I should note that this was also the case when the "God particle" was discovered (!), and it is hardly surprising that the same is happening these days as well.
Some seek to prove God’s existence from gaps in scientific knowledge. If science does not know how to explain something, they take this as a clear sign that God exists. Atheists, by contrast, charge that such arguments commit the fallacy known as the "God of the gaps" (god of the gaps), that is, proving God’s existence from gaps in scientific knowledge. In their view, if there is a gap, that is a reason to continue scientific research in order to understand more and close more and more of those gaps, but one should not fill a scientific gap with metaphysical hypotheses. God is not a substitute for scientific explanation, and therefore the existence of the gap and its size prove nothing at all about His existence. In my books I argued that, precisely as a believer, I think the atheists are right in this debate.
But this coin has two sides: if indeed the existence of a gap in scientific knowledge does not prove that God exists, then by the same token closing that gap does not prove that God does not exist. The question of God’s existence does not depend on gaps in scientific knowledge, or in fact on scientific explanations at all. God’s existence was no truer in the past (when the gap was larger) than it is today, but neither was it less true then. The relevant question is different: does the scientific description provide us with an adequate explanation on the philosophical-theological plane as well, or not. Whoever thinks it does sees science as an adequate philosophical alternative to belief in God, and whoever does not accept that will believe in God. The current discovery, like those that preceded it, should not change anything in this regard.
However, in the latter debate—the one about the relevance of scientific explanation to the philosophical plane—I actually find myself on the side of the believers. To the best of my judgment, scientific explanation cannot serve as a philosophical alternative to belief in God. Every scientific explanation is given within the framework of a system of basic laws of nature. Those laws themselves, of course, have no explanation within the scientific framework that presupposes them. Even if an explanation is found for them, it will be given in terms of another system of laws, which itself will require explanation. This is an essential gap, not a scientific one but a meta-scientific one, and therefore it is not something that further research is supposed to close (unless we can show that all the laws of physics are logical tautologies, laws that are valid by their very nature). In my view, the question of God’s existence is connected, if at all, with an explanation of the nature of the laws of nature and the special fit that exists among them (what is called fine tuning). By contrast, gaps in specific scientific explanations presented within the framework of these laws are supposed to be closed by further scientific research, as we have heard in recent days. The Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor…
Michael Abraham holds a doctorate in physics and teaches at the Institute for Advanced Torah Studies at Bar-Ilan University. Two of his books, The Science of Freedom (on neuroscience and free will) and God Plays Dice (on evolution and theology), were published by Yedioth Books.