HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

God of the Science Gap makes the Science Gap a God!

Religion says that science is about what God has done not about God.  But in fact religion imagines that science has a gap that is filled by God.  This denies the idea that science and religion fit together but are in two different bubbles.

Keith Ward agrees with Dawkins that science cannot test God. God by definition is supernatural meaning he is beyond nature and so he is neither proven or unproven by science. Thus God could be understood as avoidance of a scientific explanation. Science gets stuck at how things came to be and says it doesn't know. Then religion fills the gap by suggesting that God is or may be the answer. This is an undignified God of the Gaps.
 
The notion of a God of the Gaps is intended to discourage scientific research. If you think that a god is sending lightning bolts that is not encouraging you to check for the real cause. If you check anyway then you are checking in spite of your belief. Checking does not make your belief a good thing. It makes it a bad thing that you are happily going against.
 
If science is atheistic, religion says that if the evidence is convincing it could be falsified by future findings. But we cannot assume that it will be. Religion does. Science has to avoid self-deception which is why double blind tests are so important. Assumptions can lead to self-deception and be a mask for it.
 
If God is going to give us proper evidence that he exists, why would he let science refute him at least until some time in the future? It makes no sense. Waiting for the future to give evidence for God is fanciful and quite insulting to God. It is more about religion wanting to win the argument than the truth. And if we start ignoring science in order to hope that it will change its mind later then science is no good. It doesn't matter if it is about science refuting God or science refuting that red meat is healthy. Science is still being hypocritically dismissed in the name of science!
 
Science does change according to new evidence but the changes are often not that radical. And science does not change a lot. Religion makes out that science is always reversing previous "knowledge".
 
Even if science did start to say there was evidence for God, would religion believe because science says so? No. It will shout the evidence for God to the rooftops but with or without it will believe.
 
It does not care that if God cannot be shown to be untrue he cannot be shown to be true either. Such bias is intolerable in science.

Religion not only fills the vacuums in science with God but tries to invent vacuums that are not there.

Those who say that religion and science complement each other are as good as admitting that God religion is just being used to fill the gaps in our scientific knowledge. When religion is used that way, rather than a God it has a hypothesis it calls God which in principle will need to be replaced should a more satisfactory hypothesis comes up. God is not your God to you if you treat him as a god of the gaps like that. He is merely a crack-filler. Another reply is that religions that seriously disagree with one another all claim to be able to complement science. Their disagreements on important issues proves they are only guessing. Why should we attach much importance to the religious attempts to fill the gaps when the filling is mere guesswork? Plus religion does not do science. How can it know science well enough to know what religious theories to plug the gaps with? And we don't see religion changing its doctrine to fill the gaps better. Why not invent a religion along the lines of Hubbard's scientology that has a more scientific outlook than any current religion has? Religion's claim that it complements science is a mere dishonest smokescreen for the fact that religion threatens science.
 
If God made the universe then it should look like it was made by God. But it doesn’t. Science can therefore address the question if God as understood as designer exists. It is simply false that the question is beyond science. Putting Designer God outside science is assenting to the notion of the God of the gaps. Anywhere science meets a dead end in looking for explanations, believers yell, "The explanation is God." That is dishonest for they were doing that with gaps that have since been filled in by science.
 
It is like, "We have no explanation so God will do as an explanation until one turns up." Rather than being that which is to be worshipped above all, God becomes a cosmetic to hide the holes.
 
Also, faith is weakened as the evidence for God weakens. Thus obedience to the command of Christ to put God first and to make the love of God your only motive in whatever you do is chipped away at until there is nothing left.
 
The scientist believers don't care about God as long as their religious assumptions are made to look credible. They should not be allowed to practice science as they are too biased.
 
Science has had a problem with practitioners distorting things and forcing honest scientists to spend a fortune of time and money on correcting the damage done. Money that could be spent on medical science is wasted because of a problem created by the mavericks and their religious sensibilities.