This is one of those accusations we seem to hear all the time. As soon as we say some natural event might have been caused by God or the result of God’s work, we’re committing the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

But here’s a little problem with that argument. Atheists seem to act as if one day all the gaps are going to be filled in by science. One day science will have just told us everything there is to know and when that day comes we can stop writing new science textbooks and just move on with our lives.

However, as science progresses, it answers one question and creates fifty more. In other words, as we make progress, there’s always more gaps opening up, and thus always more room for God. God is always unreachable by logic, He requires a leap of faith to even begin to comprehend (and it’s a very small beginning.)

However, just for the record, it is therefore rather reasonable to go for some “God of the gaps” arguments because “gaps” are always going to be there. We will never know everything, because to do so would be to become gods ourselves.

In practical terms, you are right. There is really nothing worth getting worked up about if god is impersonal–because that would probably mean it wouldn’t have any more interest in us than do rocks.

Since this kind of rules out an impersonal god, I am going to jump to the conclusion that the only god you might be interested in finding would be a personal (or supra-personal) god.

At Et tu? you posted: But it would at least help if some evidence could make it more likely than not. If God appeared before me, that would be something. If I was falling off a cliff, and he grabbed me and pulled me back onto the mountain, that’d be a mark on his side. Or if God left some evidence of his existence behind for science to snag, something that would lead us toward him and no other logical conclusion. Tough to say what that would be, but we’ve learned a heckuva lot to this point. If it were something physical, testable and observable, that’d be something to seriously consider.

But, in your heart of hearts, I think you know that none of those would do the trick either. If God appeared before you, you would explain it as a psychic phenomena caused by bad pizza and too much beer. If God saved you from plunging to your death, you would explain it as a freak wind and good luck. And if there was scientific evidence, you would say that there could be other explanations we just haven’t figured them out–yet.

Because, really, God has done all those things, you just don’t accept the evidence. He did walk the earth 2,000 years ago, and taught, and died, and rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. That can’t be proven empirically, which is what you seem to want, but it can be proven reasonably well historically/legally–which, as it happens, is an intellectual, if not scientific, argument. (I could not possibly do justice to the argument, but if you are skeptical pick up a copy of The Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf.) And remember, every belief you have about events and people you didn’t personally experience, you accept on historical/legal evidence. The same is true of all the miracles at which you scoff. You disdain the source, so you disbelieve the evidence.

As far as the last proof goes, any God that could be proven in a laboratory, by testing and observation, would be a thing, not a person. So based on your prior statement, that wouldn’t interest you anyway. But it will be an rough day for the logic professors when scientists catch up with politicians and discover how to make something out of nothing.

I know these words won’t convert you and, from what I understand, God isn’t going to force you to believe in Him either through personal experiences or scientific evidence. But I do hope you will be open to a God worthy of the name, rather than battle against a god of your own imagining.

What is man? merely a mass of walking hydro-carbons, a thing? or a being, a person? are we simply biological entities, without any more significance than a tree, or is there something else, something beyond a string of bio-chemical-electical reactions?
Is this all there is to human life?
Is this all there is to the world?

Indeed, this was the beginning of the road on the search for truth for our own former athiest.

The realization that we are more than a collection of molecules, more than a mere rock or clump of dirt, and that reality goes beyond that which we can see and touch, is the beginning of truth, which sets one free.

Conversely, the conclusion that we are not anything more than what you see, that we do not, in fact, have any greater significance than a worm in the great scheme of things, is to be enslaved by error, which leads inevitably to existential angst and the nihilistic abyss.

For those struggling with the God Question, I can sympathize. The idea of the existence of God is absurd. Completely, outrageously absurd.

The only problem is that the idea of a world and universe without God is even more absurd, irrational, and lacking in reason.

One problem with looking for sufficient proof of God’s existence is that we all too often have a false conception of who and what God is. We are not really sure of who and what it is that we are searching for. For many of us, even if He were sitting right next to us, we would never know that He is God. Indeed, people walked by Jesus everyday for years without ever giving Him a second thought. As a result of not knowing what to look for, many of us have constructed caricatures of God, silly mythological constructs, which are easy to shoot down as childish.

Another problem with demanding proof of the truth before we will believe it is that such an approach necessarily puts ourselves before the truth. And when you put yourself before the truth, the truth will always be behind you, and you will never be able to see it.

Ultimately, if one is honest with himself, he must admit that it really does not matter what the proof is or not is. Either God exists, or He does not exist. It does not matter if there is one miniscule piece of evidence for God’s existence or non-existence, or if there are a million-billion pieces of evidence — either God is true or He is not true. Our demand for evidence is irrelevant.

P.S. Jen – excellent article over at America – thank you

Jeff,
Jesus was a historical figure, whose life and death was recounted by outside sources and whose words were recorded in the Gospels. Even those skeptical of his divinity agree that he existed and that the Gospels have some historic value. Also, the directives he left for how to live, if actually followed, would lead to a pretty near-perfect society.
You may not believe he’s God, but there is at least some evidence that links Jesus to humanity’s story. Not so for the FSM, or Zeus, Apollo, etc.
Also, I think you misunderstand what was meant by “cohesive explanation.” I don’t think the reference was akin to a “theory of everything” in the way a physicist might mean, but one that offers a cohesive view on morality, psychology, and spirituality. It offers a plan of action that can make life feel worthwhile and keep a person’s attention on others instead of oneself.
That’s not a “god-in-the-gaps” argument since it doesn’t use God to explain physical phenomena yet to be disovered.

One of my other favorites of yours is the toolbox. That was awesome.

The founder of Christianity claimed to be God. I found that compelling. No other major religions made that claim, and it’s a tough one to pull off if it’s not true.”

Maybe I’m being picayune, and not to take away from your well written post, but can’t Judaism lay the same claim?

“To know God is to know love. And love is not something you find in a book.”

I believe that love IS something you can find in a book, but not just any book. THE book. The only book that God has ever written for man, the Bible. The very Word of God. The book oozes with truth and love.

Thanks for sharing with us. It is always exciting to see how God works uniquely in our lives.

So, you don’t think there are non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage? I agree that abortion can be opposed on non-religious grounds.

As for “push[ing] this country toward endorsing religion and religious doctrine.” Don’t you think that this country was founded at least with a strong endorsement of some theism, however vaguely defined? Our country was also founded with a strong sense of at least the utility of religion’s influence in public life. So, aren’t atheists like yourself actually the ones “pushing” for change? And why shouldn’t religious believers be able to push back, if they want to, particularly in a democratic republic such as our own? Now, you may simply answer because you are right and believers are wrong, but in a country that embraces religious freedom and freedom of conscience there has to be a lot of toleration of those who are wrong (atheists inlcuded, of course).

I just can’t get excited either way about the Pledge of Allegiance–if you really believe God doesn’t exist, what’s the harm? It’s like saying “under Santa.” Or is it that you think it forces atheists to lie, and that’s morally repugnant to you? I guess I could see a point there… but if believers are simply deluded then I just don’t see the big deal about humoring the majority a little.

As a side note, there are some Catholics out there who agree with you about “Intelligent Design.”

–Elizabeth

… and the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” and “Intelligent Design” in science classes. Yes, those, although abortion less so since I can see reasonable non-religious reasons to oppose it. So I guess it actually goes a bit beyond “policy,” per se. It’s basically anything that appears to be trying to push this country toward endorsing religion and religious doctrine.