The Gradual Retreat from Certainty
How filling in the gaps actually makes us “know” less
By MARTIN REZNY
It’s certainly fair to say that if we haven’t found exact proof of any god within all that we know in a scientific way, any gods would have to exist and operate outside of our scientific understanding. In the gaps, as they say. There’s just one small problem with using that to argue that gods are therefore decreasingly likely to be existing and operating — as you gain more knowledge, what increases is the extent to which you understand how much you probably don’t know. In other words, gaps only expand.
Before I get into how that works exactly, a little disclaimer. What I’m going to argue is not a proof of any particular god’s existence. It’s merely an explanation of why the “god of the gaps” line of reasoning is a quite ineffective way of arguing against the possibility of existence of any god or gods. And, ironically, why it is an argument born of ignorance and arrogance of a kind normally attributed precisely to religious dogmatism.
To get some idea of where I’m coming from, what you might be familiar with is the famous Socratic paradox:
“I know one thing, that I know nothing.”
This sentiment is essentially the intellectual cornerstone of the western modern scientific tradition, and this is why I think it matters to question any scientist who argues from the position of superior or sufficiently complete knowledge. Because we don’t have that. We certainly don’t have that today, after a couple of centuries of serious scientific inquiry into the nature of our existence, and here are some examples of why we likely never will.
Astronomy at Odds with Itself
Let’s look at the example of cosmology, or more specifically astrophysics, as that’s as close as we can get to scientifically figuring out the origin and consequently the nature of, well, nature. First we thought that our planet is everything, then our solar system, then the galaxy, and then the universe. Now a multiverse is a very real possibility. As Neil deGrasse Tyson keeps occasionally mentioning, he’s no longer going to believe that there’s a one of anything, not after Occam’s razor was wrong so many times in a row.
As you can see, the first problem with inferring the extent of what exists from what’s known is that sometimes, entities do multiply beyond necessity, because “necessity” is a subjective perception limited by our limited understanding. Another example of this is that at first, we thought that visible matter and energy are all there is, but now there’s dark matter and dark energy, which, as Tyson notes, might as well be called something like “Fred”, given how little we understand them. Scientists now believe that these actually comprise about 95% of all there is, dwarfing the visible 5%.
You can choose to see this as filling in the gaps, but try applying it to proving or disproving that god or gods can exist. Before the discovery of these extra 95% of everything there is, before multiverse was even considered, scientists were sure that no god exists because of the lack of evidence. Is it really logical to be MORE sure about it now, after such expansion of what’s possible? Think about it. If I was sure that some creature doesn’t exist but then realized I have searched only 5% of all places, I don’t know about you, but I’d become much LESS certain of it.
And those are not the only indications that some god-like shenanigans are entirely physically possible. Other new discoveries that have significantly widened the gaps in our knowledge are things like computers and the unreasonable effectiveness of math, opening up the simulation hypothesis, and the fact that something can indeed arise from the nothing of vacuum, and it does, spontaneously, all the time. This means that what has entered into the realm of possibility is a physical way in which a god-like entity could pop into existence ex nihilo or code entire universes to pop into existence.
It doesn’t mean that any specific god-like entity has ever popped into existence or created existence via the “popping in” mechanism using math, of course. But where this would have previously been a wild fantasy not worthy of scientific consideration, the science has PROGRESSED to the point where it now cannot rule this out with any certainty. To put it simply, the more you know about the universe, the less certainty is warranted — the more the gaps get filled in, the more they expand. Blame Socrates.
The Great Always-Beyond
To argue that the gaps are receding in any sense warranting being progressively more certain that gods don’t exist, one must believe that one day we will pretty much figure it all out AND still find no proof of any gods existing and operating. Of course, you might as well believe in rapture or Ragnarok. It’s not necessarily incorrect, but it’s not necessarily any more or less correct than other hopes and dreams. If anything, the rate at which our known lack of understanding expands suggests that universe can easily be an infinite fractal, more even than merely a multiverse of multiverses.
The unwarranted certainty is the real problem here, especially when demonstrated by people who’d like to think of themselves as scientists, because it is a limiting factor to further scientific progress. Understanding that there’s probably much more than you understand is the beginning of figuring out what that might be exactly. Scientists that are too certain are instead likely to reject phenomena they cannot understand as “illusions”.
If you think we’ve pretty much figured out most of it all already, then explain to me for example what qualia like consciousness, cognition, or religious experiences are and how exactly they work. Not explain them away, mind you, or reduce them to something that explains nothing like “things that some parts of the brain do”. If such phenomena are somehow emergent and don’t arise from the interactions of particles in a mechanical way, imagine how much more we may still be completely ignorant about.
Not that you need the lack of effective qualitative science to poke holes in any sense of scientific certainty. Just imagine that visible matter and energy along with dark matter and dark energy are only 5% of a larger whole where there’s further 95% of forces we don’t even know exist, and then imagine that that too can only be 5% of all real quantifiable material stuff. Imagine that there are even crazier physics behind quantum mechanics that would elucidate much of what we currently see as sheer randomness.
Precisely because of how greatly our scientific knowledge has advanced so far, we shouldn’t fall for the trappings of religious dogmatism and try to wield scientific authority as a stick against beliefs. Transcendentalism as such clearly isn’t wrong, as there are things beyond our knowledge that are taking only greater shapes stretching into Lovecraftian depths. Now, more than ever before, what cannot be ruled out shouldn’t be forbidden to entertain. If what you actually don’t like are religious practices, fine. Admit that and argue against those, which is entirely possible, instead of using a bad argument against all faith that is itself based entirely on a delusion.
