RT Article
T1 In What Sense are God of the Gaps Arguments Fallacious or Legitimate?
JF Science & Christian belief
VO 36
IS 2
SP 159
OP 187
A1 Preston, Pu Ji
LA English
YR 2024
UL https://ixtheo.de/Record/1908124369
AB Theistic arguments which appeal to gaps in our scientific knowledge are frequently labelled 'God of the gaps' (GOG). While many regard such arguments as obviously fallacious (an argument from ignorance), some disagree. Drawing on critics and defenders, this article examines the logical validity of GOG, stated in two distinct formulations: (1) It is not proven that 'God is active in this corner of nature' is false; therefore God is indeed here; (2) it is not proven that 'there is a natural cause for this event' is true; therefore there is no natural cause or explanation. The difference is more than semantic; while the perceived wisdom mostly targets the first version, recent advocates match the second more closely. Neither formulation of GOG is fallacious once the logical structures and implicit premises are identified; the first version is best categorized as an assertion of burden of proof, and the second an instance of denying the consequent. As their merits are assessed against well-known objections, the second version is found to be considerably stronger than the first. It can be a solid argument, assuming that its empirical premises are supported by strong evidence.
K1 Argument
K1 BURDEN of proof
K1 Darwinism
K1 God
K1 God of the gaps
K1 LOGICAL fallacies
K1 Scientific Knowledge
K1 argument from ignorance
K1 denying the consequent
K1 Intelligent Design
K1 logical fallacy
K1 Methodological Naturalism
K1 Miracles
K1 Scientific Progress