The term “God of the gaps” has become a frequent accusation by atheists against theistic arguments, suggesting that belief in God is invoked to explain gaps in scientific understanding. This critique, while rhetorically effective, fundamentally misrepresents classical theistic reasoning, which is grounded not in ignorance but in evidence, logic, and metaphysical necessity. By analyzing the origins, misapplications, and underlying assumptions of this objection, we will demonstrate that “God of the gaps” fails to undermine robust arguments for God’s existence.

What is “God of the Gaps”?

The term “God of the gaps” emerged in 19th-century theology, most notably through Henry Drummond, who warned against using God as a placeholder for gaps in scientific knowledge.¹ Drummond encouraged Christians to see God in the natural laws themselves rather than in areas science had not yet explained. However, this critique has since been weaponized by atheists to caricature all theistic arguments as intellectually lazy and scientifically untenable.

In truth, classical theistic arguments—such as the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments—do not rely on gaps in knowledge but on what we do know. For example, the cosmological argument rests on the metaphysical principle of causality, asserting that contingent beings require a necessary cause.² The teleological argument focuses on the observable order and purpose in the universe, which points to intentionality.³ Such arguments are grounded in evidence, not ignorance.

Misapplications by Atheists

Modern atheists frequently misapply the “God of the gaps” critique by dismissing any argument for design or purpose as mere ignorance. Richard Dawkins exemplifies this misunderstanding when he writes, “Intelligent design is just a ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy, retreating to the last redoubt of ignorance.“⁴ Yet arguments for design do not hinge on ignorance but on positive evidence of fine-tuning and complexity.

Consider the fine-tuning of the universe. Scientists have observed that the constants governing the universe—such as the gravitational constant or the cosmological constant—exist within a range so narrow that even slight deviations would render life impossible.⁵ Physicist Paul Davies notes, “The impression of design is overwhelming.“⁶ Far from being a placeholder for ignorance, fine-tuning points to an intelligent cause because chance and necessity alone cannot account for the observed precision.

Similarly, Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity in cellular systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, challenges purely naturalistic explanations.⁷ Behe argues that these systems cannot function unless all parts are present simultaneously, making gradual evolutionary pathways implausible. Critics often invoke hypothetical future discoveries to explain such phenomena, effectively employing a “naturalism of the gaps” fallacy.⁸

Daniel Dennett, another prominent atheist, dismisses such evidence as a byproduct of evolutionary processes. He argues, “Design is not an ultimate explanation; it is the result of mindless algorithmic processes.“⁹ However, this reductionist view fails to account for the origin of the algorithms themselves. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga critiques, Dennett’s argument assumes the very thing it seeks to explain—the existence of a rational, intelligible framework for evolution.¹⁰

Addressing Objections with Metaphysical Depth

One of the strongest counters to the “God of the gaps” critique is the metaphysical argument for God. The contingency argument, championed by thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, asserts that everything in the universe is contingent—it depends on something else for its existence. This chain of dependency cannot regress infinitely and must terminate in a necessary being, which classical theists identify as God.¹¹ (In addition to Aquinas, we can add the works of great thinkers such as Avicenna, Leibniz, John Duns Scotus, Descartes, Samuel Clarke, Josef Pieper, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Edward Feser, John Hick, and Richard Swinburne).

Atheists often respond by invoking the multiverse hypothesis to explain fine-tuning or dismissing contingency arguments as unnecessary. However, as William Lane Craig explains, “The multiverse hypothesis is itself contingent on finely tuned laws of physics to generate life-permitting universes. It doesn’t eliminate the need for an ultimate explanation.“¹² Furthermore, the multiverse itself would require an external cause or framework to exist—a reality that points back to the need for a necessary being.¹³

Additionally, naturalism cannot account for the metaphysical grounding of immaterial realities such as logic, morality, or consciousness. As Sam Harris admits, “Science can, in principle, help us understand why we feel certain moral impulses, but it cannot tell us why those impulses are objectively good or binding.“¹⁴ This admission aligns with the classical theist view that immaterial realities find their grounding in God, not in naturalistic processes.

Science and Faith: Complementary, Not Conflicting

The accusation of “God of the gaps” arises from a false dichotomy between science and faith. Science explains the mechanisms of the natural world, while theology addresses the ultimate causes and purposes behind those mechanisms. As Oxford mathematician John Lennox observes, “God is not a God of the gaps; He is the God of the whole show.“¹⁵

Far from hindering scientific progress, belief in God has historically motivated it. The Christian worldview, which sees the universe as orderly and intelligible, provided the philosophical foundation for the scientific revolution.¹⁶ C.S. Lewis remarked, “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.“¹⁷

Furthermore, the more science uncovers about the universe, the more it points to design. As biochemist Alister McGrath writes, “The more we understand the universe, the more it appears that its physical laws were delicately fine-tuned to produce life.“¹⁸ This alignment of science and faith strengthens the case for God, not by filling gaps but by revealing the Creator behind the order.

The “God of the gaps” objection fails to engage with the depth and rigor of classical theistic arguments. These arguments do not rely on ignorance but are grounded in evidence, logic, and metaphysics. Rather than being undermined by science, the case for God is strengthened as science uncovers the intricate order and fine-tuning of the universe. Theism offers not a placeholder for gaps in knowledge but the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

¹ Henry Drummond, The Ascent of Man (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1894)

² William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008)

³ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q. 2, A. 3.

⁴ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006)

⁵ Luke A. Barnes, “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 29 (2012)

⁶ Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007)

⁷ Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996)

⁸ Cornelius G. Hunter, Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007)

⁹ Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995)

¹⁰ Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)

¹¹ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapter 13

¹² William Lane Craig, “The Teleological Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009)

¹³ Robin Collins, “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration,” in The Rationality of Theism, ed. Paul Copan and Paul Moser (New York: Routledge, 2003)

¹⁴ Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010)

¹⁵ John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford: Lion Books, 2009)

¹⁶ Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York: Random House, 2005)

¹⁷ C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: HarperOne, 2001)

¹⁸ Alister E. McGrath, The Science of God: An Introduction to Scientific Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2004)