God of the Gaps

I was listening to a radio interview yesterday with Dr. Francis Collins, direction of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who became a Christian because he realized that science couldn't answer all the questions about the world and existence.  A caller quite predictably accused the scientist of using "God of the gaps."  He said something like, Because science hasn't answered everything yet, you choose to assign those unanswered questions to religion.  Maybe there are just limits to what we can scientifically understand.

The callers objection assumed that science can answer everything.  The reason religion, philosophy, history, and morality are not filling the gaps with God is because different kinds of questions require different fields of inquiry.  Not everything is a scientific question. There are all sorts of categories of questions about the world, and science can only answer some of them.  We use the right tool for the job. 

In fact, the caller was guilty of a "god of the gaps" kind of answer.  He asserted, without reason, that everything can be answered scientifically, we are just too limited to discover the answers.  So in principle, he suggests all questions left unanswered by science are simply example where we fell short, not science.  So he believes in "science of the gaps."

The idea that science can answer everything lurks behind more and more issues.  The pro-embryonic stem cell research people often imply that if it's scientifically possible, it should be done.  Some have openly stated that opponents of ESCR are just religionists - as if all ethical concerns are motivated by religion alone.  So it's scientific progress versus naive religionists.

More and more we hear scientific explanations for behavioral problems.  There very well might be organic connections, but if the causes of destructive are purely physical then there morality has been taken out of the equation.

Science is one line of inquiry.  But it's not the tool for all of our investigations.  An answer can only be "God of the gaps" if it's the "fill-in-the-blank" answer.  But God is often the proper conclusion to some questions.

Comments

[dsswanigan]

Melinda:

I agree with much of what you say. This line of reasoning has invaded many minds. It is pervasive even outside of scientific circles.

I recently read a Time article regarding Collins' theory of BioLogos (theistic evolution). I think the idea that science can answer everything plays into his adherence here as well. Kudos to Collins for coming as far as he has, but there is still more ground to cover.

[William Wilcox]

There is an intersting talk given by Alister McGrath touching on science and religion "Has Science Killed God? Richard Dawkins and the Meaning of Life". Go here:

http://www.htb.org.uk/sptc/

and folow the link to the lecture. It runs about an hour and a quarter.

[alan aronson]

PZ had some thoughts on Collins:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/francis_collins_doofus_for_the.php#more

[Robert Casteline]

Alan, do you ever post on PZ? Reading the blog entry and the responses, there are a lot of straw men regarding the ideas of faith and religion. A number of the responses on there had the same flavor as those posted in various sources when Anthony Flew moved to a non-atheistic position. "How could anyone so smart believe something so dumb." But, I guess there is invective from participants on both sides. Oh well.

[alan aronson]

I read PZ for the science. Some of his social posts are good and others a bit over the top.

[Synthesizer]

"the caller.... asserted, without reason, that everything can be answered scientifically"

"scientifically," as in 'atheistically'

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
aka
http://tinyurl.com/evr9q

On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
aka
http://tinyurl.com/zx46f