1.4 Miracles and “God of the Gaps”

Miracles and “God of the Gaps”

If science is limited to natural causes and effects, then what about miracles? What would result from allowing supernatural causes as part of scientific explanations? Does excluding miracles from scientific consideration mean that they aren’t true?

Science uses the tools of observation, measurement, testing and analysis to investigate the material world. One of the problems with introducing supernatural explanations into scientific theories is that scientists don’t have the tools necessary to investigate them. A miraculous event might be observable, but how can it be measured? How can we repeat a supernatural event in order to analyze it in detail, since it is by definition outside human control? If miracles are performed by God according to His will, they are not subject to repeatability by human initiative. Their outcomes are not capable of being predicted by any natural system, such as the law of gravity or the theory of relativity.
One illustration of this is scientific studies on the effectiveness of prayer. While believers are pleased whenever scientific studies are published claiming that prayer aids in the process of healing, do we really want to subject religious belief to scientific investigation? What happens when scientific studies prove that prayer isn’t that effective after all? Should such studies lead us to conclude that prayer is a waste of time? (There have been studies questioning the benefit of prayer.)

A true scientific experiment might be a “double-blind” test, where a group of people would be chosen to pray for individuals with medical needs, while another group is chosen to pray for imaginary people, and some of the sick aren’t prayed for at all. None of the subjects would know whether they were praying for a real person, and none of the sick would know whether they were being prayed for. The results would be tracked over time to gauge the effectiveness of prayer. But is the value of prayer in the praying itself, or is it partly in the fact that the faith of the sick is improved by knowing that there are caring people, and a caring God, concerned about them? Is it always God's will to bring physical healing? Even if such a study could prove that prayer is helpful, what would be the result? Hospitals might begin hiring staffs of “prayer employees,” to systematically offer prayers for every resident at medical facilities. But is this mechanical mechanism really the purpose of faith in God or the intended purpose of miraculous healing? By subjecting a supernatural, faith-based mechanism to scientific investigation, the special character of such activities would be detracted from.

Another difficulty with including miracle as an explanation is the “God of the Gaps” problem. Once we reach the end of our scientific knowledge, it is tempting to explain unknown phenomena as the interventionist work of a divine intelligence. Especially when this is taken to the level of “proof that God exists,” it often becomes problematic. “God of the Gaps” theology relies on the limits of human ignorance as evidence for God, and when those gaps in our knowledge are filled, the space for God (seems to) shrink.

An example of this might be the nature of solar energy. In the 1800’s, much was known about combustion and energy. They knew that the sun was a large star that was putting off tremendous amounts of energy into space in all directions. There was no known mechanism for explaining how the sun could give off this much energy through normal combustion, because it would burn itself out quickly. It might have been tempting for some 19th century Christians to claim that God himself was the source for divinely creating the light and heat given to us from the sun. This could have been reinforced by certain Bible verses that speak of Jesus as the light of the world, and God being the giver and sustainer of life.
However, this gap in our scientific knowledge was soon to be filled with the discovery of the processes of nuclear physics, and we learned that the energy in the sun comes from nuclear fusion of small elements. If we had relied on this gap in our knowledge as evidence for God’s existence, the natural process of nuclear fusion would have edged God out of this domain of responsibility that we had attributed to his miraculous power. A follow-on problem might be the temptation to oppose and obstruct the progress of science, when it appears that science is pushing God aside as a necessary explanation, due to its success in explaining physical causes and effects.

A third problem with the idea of attributing something to a miracle, as opposed to a natural scientific explanation, is that it creates an unnecessary either/or situation. Either God is responsible (miracle) or a natural process was involved. This doesn’t leave any room for something to be the result of both natural and providential influence. If God is providentially in control over all things, in addition to natural (secondary) causes, then there is no necessary conflict.

There is much more to say about miracles. One problem is even defining them. Are miracles violations of natural laws, or do they include natural occurrences that may have been providentially directed by God in terms of timing and location? An example of this might be with the Exodus of the Israelites – it has been suggested by various scholars that the plagues on Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea were naturally occurring phenomena, that were used by God to free Israel.
In either case, it is impossible for science to properly evaluate miracles. If they are violations of natural laws, science is incapable of investigating them, because science is limited to natural cause and effect. If certain miracles are natural occurrences that have been invisibly directed by God, then science can examine the physical aspects, but will have no power to explain the miraculous or unusual character of them (such as their rarity or specific timing). Yet, the fact that they occurred in precisely the time and place that they did indicates that God was in control. This is a matter of faith and is not subject to direct scientific validation.