Is there anything wrong with this argument?

Question

"Science cannot explain [insert specific event or phenomena] and we don't know if it ever will; therefore, it is possible, even probable, that god* did it".












*the word "god" is here being used to refer to the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian, Biblical deity Yahweh.

Answer 1

Yes.

Your argument implies that if science can explain something then God did not do it.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims would disagree with this implication. God has created the universe and all of its laws including those explained by science.

No science claims or proves that God does not exist.

Most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are completely accepting of responsible science.

For example, most Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact.

One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good.

Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang (that was proposed by a Catholic priest) or evolution or both or neither.

On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theories of the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. However tomorrow someone may come up with better ideas.

As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony.

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

Your example is not entirely truthful. In many instances it is not just that science cannot explain it but what science has explained is that it is highly improbable that certain things could have happened simply by chance. Such as the complexity required to assemble a small protein chain never mind an entire structure of something such as a fruit fly which is very complex. So yes to an open mind te possbility that a god or gods could have been involved is realistic. And although Christians may favour their God as being that God no one is enforcing this viewpoint. And the argument that science would somehow grind to a halt is a ridicullous attmept to scare monger people against Intelligent Design. Do people honestly believe if someone simply says God did it that the wheels of science and enquiry would grind to a hlat in reverance to Christians? Not hardly!

Answer 3

The argument commits the fallacy of "argument form personal incredulity" better known in this instance as "the god of the gaps".

Think of it this way, what the argument basically states is:
We do not know the answer, therefore god /may/ have done it.

The logical flaw is difficult to spot, particularly because of the "may" (or in this argument's case "it is possible, even probable"). So let's rephrase the argument to something a little more abstract:
We do not know the answer; therefore, here is an answer...

I think the logical inconsistency is self-evident there. Even using a "may" or other probabilistic term(s) it still commits the fallacy, since the argument ultimately offers an answer to something it admittedly has no answer to.

Answer 4

Yes. For starters, the way you phrase that one would think that things science can 'explain' are things that God doesn't do. I rarely hear that one, unless from a true atheist.
Also, 'explain' is subject to the infinite regress objection. Wherever you stop your explanation you are pulling in something as self-evident. Like when kids say 'Just because.' There is no assumptionless science. Don't we say the "laws of science". We assume an ordered, rational world. Finally, the thing that bugs me most : why do you (and many folks, really) divide the world between 'God' and 'science'. I object. As Peggy Lee says, Is that all there is !!

Answer 5

There is everything wrong with that argument. You could insert anything into that gap. The only correct way to present the argument is to say "Science cannot explain [whatever] and we don't know if it ever will." Period.

One thing I love about science is that it admits when something is not (yet) known, keeps trying to find the answers, and has no room for the God of the Gaps.

Answer 6

Commonly known as God of the gaps. For example, I do not understand how the sky makes loud noises and bright flashes of light therefore Goddidit.

This mindset is the complete polar opposite to scientific inquiry. The whole idea of science is to figure out how, why and when.

Answer 7

Its just another example of people thinking that the world breaks down into either science or God. And of course, as you mentioned, its specifically science or *their* God.

Science, at this point, is limited by scientists. Science may very well be able to explain everything under the sun, but as intelligent and creative as our scientists are, they are still only human and can only work within the limits of their brains.

And just because scientists haven't discovered the information yet, doesn't mean that we can pick one deity out of thousands and attribute the event or phenomena to them ...

Answer 8

How about this one - science explains ONLY material reality and God by definition transcends material reality (is supernatural) therefore science has never, can never, and will never prove that God hasn't done absolutely everything or nothing at all. Science has nothing whatever to say about the question.

Answer 9

It's "wrong" in scientific terms. God of the Gaps has no place in science.

I trust the methods of science to help find cures for diseases, to discover the beauty and vastness of space.

I happen to believe in God as well and will not support any pseudo science that conforms to this method of what I call scientific laziness.

Ledbetter, I agree with you too and I admire scientists in their duty to research, discover and experiment on THIS earth. That is their quest and I hope they never stop searching. This has no reflection on my faith even remotely.

Answer 10

Nothing that I can see, unless you would prefer that the term "God" were removed and the term "higher power" were placed there, so as not to place a specificity on who God is.