Visualize a large fort ringed by several hundred soldiers, feverishly digging trenches around high security walls, to safeguard a nervous king increasingly wary of every external sound and commotion. The scene clearly gives the impression of a Crown lacking in valiance, desperate to be rescued from his predicament.
The conduct of today’s communities towards multiplicity of gods, couched in dogmatics and steeped in ritualistic monotony, would remind us of the fortified king’s unenvious situation. The so-called almighty figure cast in stone, it would appear, is heavily dependent on hype arising from legions of frenzied humans vying to offer reverence and protection. Intimidating the skeptics and nonbelievers with blasphemy laws and threats to life, proselytising the pliant and credulous with horror visions of hellfire and dreams of an afterlife in paradise teeming with all conceivable pleasures. In effect, the exercise is as fatuous as holding an umbrella, made of highly combustible material, over a raging fire. If the supreme energy is the infinite power and ultimate truth pervading the universe, or multiverses if you will, is there a need for petty humans to boost it with hype and hoopla, worship and safeguarding? Why are the huge mass of people desperately toiling and moiling on such irrational endeavours?
The answer to it lies in the existential crisis surrounding today’s humans. In trying to protect gods, we are aiming to protect not gods, but our own crumbling edifice of worldly securities. It is mainly visible in the way we connect with science. Historically, gaps, created by mysteries of life unexplained by science, were filled in by gods. Thunder, lightning, quakes, tsunamis, diseases and other natural disasters were all attributed to acts of god. The encircling darkness of human ignorance generated by these phenomena faded in the blazing light of scientific inventions and discoveries. Earth became scaled down as just another tiny planet at the galactic fringes, from its originally exalted centrality of the universe. Advances in meteorology and medicine translated into timely weather predictions, effective preparation against climatic vagaries, and cure for ailments. The fallout of this was the challenge of relegating gods to progressively narrowing gaps between science and the unknown. As knowledge advanced, the scope for godly intervention limited to moments near the Big Bang, mysteries surrounding consciousness, or the capriciousness of quantum mechanics. Putting it differently, the plight of gods is now akin to the lion downsizing to a microbe in its own den, desperately trying to squeeze into as yet untraced crannies between the telescopes, microscopes and other equipments of science, AI and ML.
In an age when scientific laboratories define the nature of reality, religions are in an existential angst. Religious doctrines and theologies are reeling under overpowering might of steadily advancing science and rational outlook. This is sought to be partly countered by ‘retrofitting’ – ferreting out stories from dusty pages of scriptures as if these climatic vagaries and astounding developments in science were anticipated in the revelations of yore: it is a kind of face-saving, desperate attempt at holding religious necks above the surging waters of science and technology; nothing more than that. The mass of fearful and credulous believers forming the bedrock of religions may still find solace in scriptural yarns but by taking recourse to such gimmicks and chicanery the clergy is reducing science to a justifying tool and religious teachings to a crude forecast of scientific discoveries, climatic turbulences and apocalyptic doom or visions of afterlife fantasies.
That begs the question of why humans are involving in something so infructuous. The reason is that human mind craves for stories whereas science is about equations, possibilities and procedural rigour. It tells what, when and how of things but not the who. Attempts to use divine intervention as an explanation for phenomena not yet understood by science, and attributing phenomena that are not yet explained by science to the direct intervention of God are sarcastically captured in the expression, god of the gaps. It posits that any gap in scientific understanding is a space where god’s existence can be inserted as an explanation. However, the sarcasm in this line of reasoning comes to the fore when science eventually explains the phenomenon.
As scientific knowledge continues to advance, these gaps tend to shrink, potentially weakening the argument for god’s existence. Critics contend that such an approach can undermine religious beliefs by suggesting that god only operates in the unexplained areas of our understanding, leaving little room for divine involvement in a comprehensive and coherent worldview. In this context, some theologians and scientists have proposed that a more satisfactory approach is to view evidence of divinity within the natural processes themselves, rather than relying on the gaps in scientific understanding to validate religious beliefs.
From the last quarter of nineteenth century, Friedrich Nietzsche states in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra that “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God”. The concept goes back to Henry Drummond, a contemporary evangelist lecturer, from his 1893 Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science has not explained as presence of god — “gaps which they will fill up with God” — and urges them to embrace all nature as god’s, as the work of “an immanent god, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology.”
During World War II, the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. In his words: “how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.”
Charles Alfred Coulson wrote: “There is no ‘God of the gaps’ to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking. And either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all.” Coulson was a mathematics professor at Oxford University as well as a Methodist church leader, often appearing in the religious programs of British Broadcasting Corporation. The actual phrase ‘God of the gaps’ is credited to him.

There are gaps in a physical-chemical explanation of this world, and there always will be. Because science has learned many marvelous secrets of nature, it cannot be concluded that it can explain all phenomena. Meaning, soul, spirits, and life are subjects incapable of physical-chemical explanation or formation. The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of god as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form: There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. But such arguments tend to relegate god to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of god decreases, as depicted by the AI hand of science closing in on the human hand.

It has also been argued that the god-of-the-gaps view is predicated on the assumption that any event which can be explained by science automatically excludes god; that if god did not do something via direct action, he had no role in it at all. The “god of the gaps” argument, as traditionally advanced, was intended as a criticism against weak or tenuous faith, not as a statement against theism or belief in god. The phrase is generally derogatory, and is inherently a direct criticism of a tendency to postulate acts of god to explain phenomena for which science has not (at least at present) given a satisfactory account. In this vein, Richard Dawkins, an atheist, dedicates a chapter of his book The God Delusion to criticism of the god-of-the-gaps argument. He noted: “Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer clearly saw the danger of placing God on the level of secondary causal explanation. God and the god hypothesis would be edged out, just as the astronomer Marquis de Laplace replied “I had no need of that hypothesis” when Napoleon asked why he did not discuss God in his writings. According to Ian Barbour in Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (1997): “The ‘God of the gaps’ was as unnecessary in biology after Darwin as it had been in physics after Laplace. Adaptive changes could be accounted for by random variation and natural selection without involving divine intervention. We have Darwin to thank for finally making it clear that God is neither a secondary cause operating on the same level as natural forces nor a means for filling gaps in the scientific account.”
The concept of god intervening from beyond to fill in inadequate knowledge or to resolve human problems actually goes back in Western culture to the ancient Greeks and the understanding of a deus ex machina (god of the machine) found in Greek theatre. When a plot became too convoluted (or the audience’s patience and endurance was wearing thin), an actor wearing the mask of the appropriate Greek deity would literally be lowered onto the stage from above by a crane (the machine) and resolve the plot conflicts, restore order, and serve out justice. In later thought, deus ex machina came to refer to any theological concept that involved god directing human or earthly events by dropping out of the supernatural into the natural. The ad hoc character of the concept expresses a form of theological desperation in which divine involvement cannot be understood in a coherent way with other forms of rational explanation.
The world is unfree, bound in shackles of precepts and attitudes handed down through generations. Thus the profound words, “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence becomes an act of rebellion,” of Albert Camus, encapsulates his existentialist idea that when external structures deny freedom, one finds true liberty and resistance through internal rebellion, authenticity, self-determination, and living fearlessly, making one’s very being a defiance against oppression, as explored in works like The Rebel and The Myth of Sisyphus. Camus argues that true freedom isn’t just political; it’s a state of mind, a conscious choice to live authentically despite oppressive systems.
By choosing our own values and living by them, even when it contradicts societal norms, we inherently challenge the system. This aligns with existentialist thought, where individuals create meaning and freedom in a meaningless or restrictive world through their choices and actions. It addresses the absurd tension between humanity’s search for meaning and the world’s indifference, suggesting rebellion through conscious, free living.




















