God and Science contradict!

Recently I started thinking about how Christians defend their God with what is known as the "God of the Gaps" hypothesis. Basically this sets out to say that whatever explanation science hasn't satisfied for some strange phenonemena, "Godidit." I employed the same reasoning when I was a fundamentalist, perceiving that it was necessary to put supernatural explanations ahead of everything that is left unexplained or unknown.

The obvious problem with this reasoning is that science has again and again proven this sort of fundamentalist retreat wrong on repeated occasions. We now have naturalistic explanations which do not require any sort of divine intervention that would interrupt natural laws. Since the authorization of the Bible, we have come to discover all sorts of God-contradicting facts like how babies are made, why people get sick and ill with disease, and why it rains. These very scientific facts alone are problematic for the Christian faith and should be answered too accordingly. The reason why there are no responses to these evidences is because it is a deteriation of the Christian faith to do so.

Further on down the road it should also be acknowledged that Christians are more apt to justify their perspective by arguing things from a "possibility" and not a "plausibility." As this becomes more and more apparent, it then follows that fundamentalists are not equipped with the necessary tools of logic for being grounded in religious belief reasonably. Just look at what I have to say in my book: In every case when it comes to the following reasons for adopting my control beliefs the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must continually retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or that what they believe is “not impossible.” However, the more that Christians must constantly retreat to what is "possible" rather than to what is “probable” in order to defend their faith, the more their faith is on shaky ground. For this is a tacit admission that instead of the evidence supporting what they believe, they are actually trying to explain the evidence away.

Therefore, what are Christians left to do when YWHEH begins to shrink in the face of empirical scientific evidence? Well, they defense becomes a statement of how weak methodological naturalism (MN) really is. In other words, because science hasn't filled every gap, God hasn't been disproven. However the facts remain that science has indeed closed a great number of these gaps, and God is becoming less and less improbable to the natural world. Although MN cannot disprove the miracles of the Bible or account for the origin of the universe itself, Christians already give admittance to the MN's deductive powers. And so the only option of choice here is to formulate a double standard: naturalism applies to everything else but the Bible.

It gets even more fundy-ish when Christians say that even if all of the gaps were filled, God would still exist being that he is behind the order of the universe. And, while true if a God does exist, it would give us less reasons to believe that he does exist!

In the end, the best the Christian community can give in defense is either double standard thinking and or a rearranging twist to logic.

Cheers.