3 ms·

Such a claim wouldn’t be taken seriously by scientists who are also, say, deists or Christians though (there are, perhaps surprisingly to some, quite a few). T

Such a claim wouldn’t be taken seriously by scientists who are also, say, deists or Christians though (there are, perhaps surprisingly to some, quite a few). The claim makes a ‘category error’, supposing that science and religion are trying to answer the same questions. This is not necessarily the case for all faith systems. For example, I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he didn’t believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing” - that he expects anything (within the limits of scientific explanation) can be explained by science and mathematics, but simultaneously believes the whole system was authored and is continually sustained by God. For Christians and Jews at least, I wouldn’t expect that many people ever believed in God just because science couldn’t explain things (in comparison, I think a lot of polytheistic belief systems came out of trying to explain physical phenomena). It’s more the idea of revelation (through prophets etc.) and later the historical person of Jesus that would be the basis.

wzdd 9y ago
"God of the gaps" is a derogatory term, and the idea of believing in a God just because some things cannot (currently) be explained is intellectually unpalatable. So I wouldn't expect most Christians to claim to believe in God for that reason, even if that was in fact why they believed.
humanrebar 9y ago
> I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he didn’t believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing” It stands to reason that a being that created order from chaos and gave form to the unformed would plausibly enjoy creating a universe that was internally consistent. I don't understand why the universe needs to be mysterious or inconsistent to be created. I don't understand why it can't be (or at least seem to be) billion of years old for that matter.
- MR4D 9y ago
  I think you nailed it. To me, God is about the question of “why” and science is the question of “how”. That being said, I think God has to be a programmer - it’s the most efficient way to create something huge (the universe), while being predictable, and therefore knowing “everything”. The universe is just a huge - ok, really, really huge - state machine. And the programmer who wrote it can predict it’s state at any point of time.
taneq 9y ago
> The claim makes a ‘category error’, supposing that science and religion are trying to answer the same questions. This is the case now, precisely because any testable claim made by religion that conflicts with the evidence is eventually discarded. No amount of faith will let a demonstrably false claim stand indefinitely.
- stephen_g 9y ago
  That’s a possible explanation, but I don’t think gels with history. The category distinction I referred to above came out of reformed theology before the Enlightenment and rise of modern science. Francis Bacon (credited with formalising the scientific method) himself described it in his essay Masculus Partus Temporum in 1603.

wzdd 9y ago

"God of the gaps" is a derogatory term, and the idea of believing in a God just because some things cannot (currently) be explained is intellectually unpalatable. So I wouldn't expect most Christians to claim to believe in God for that reason, even if that was in fact why they believed.

humanrebar 9y ago

> I think it was Oxford mathematician John Lennox who said that he didn’t believe in a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing” It stands to reason that a being that created order from chaos and gave form to the unformed would plausibly enjoy creating a universe that was internally consistent. I don't understand why the universe needs to be mysterious or inconsistent to be created. I don't understand why it can't be (or at least seem to be) billion of years old for that matter.

MR4D 9y ago
I think you nailed it. To me, God is about the question of “why” and science is the question of “how”. That being said, I think God has to be a programmer - it’s the most efficient way to create something huge (the universe), while being predictable, and therefore knowing “everything”. The universe is just a huge - ok, really, really huge - state machine. And the programmer who wrote it can predict it’s state at any point of time.

taneq 9y ago

> The claim makes a ‘category error’, supposing that science and religion are trying to answer the same questions. This is the case now, precisely because any testable claim made by religion that conflicts with the evidence is eventually discarded. No amount of faith will let a demonstrably false claim stand indefinitely.

stephen_g 9y ago
That’s a possible explanation, but I don’t think gels with history. The category distinction I referred to above came out of reformed theology before the Enlightenment and rise of modern science. Francis Bacon (credited with formalising the scientific method) himself described it in his essay Masculus Partus Temporum in 1603.