The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Was religion created to fill in the gaps of the unknown?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Mhykiel has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 94820
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




As most people know, as humans we fear the unknown. In my opinion religion is a false means of knowing things that cant possible be or are not yet explainable. This theory is called the god of gaps theory and that is that humans fear gaps in there knowledge that can not be filled so they resort to religion as a means of filling those gaps. For example commonly asked questions are; why does life exist?, where did we as humans come from? or why are there bad things in the world? All of these questions can be answered by religion. In my opinion these answers are fictional and where made up for one reason, to fill in the gaps of the unknown. Take the Theory of Evolution vs Adam and Eve; before the theory of evolution came about Christians believed that humans came from two people, that god had placed on the earth - Adam and Eve. However, when the Theory of Evolution first came in to discussion people doubted and disagreed with it but as soon as people started to think that the Theory of Evolution was a more believable theory then their former belief (as soon as the gap in their knowledge was filled by something more reliable and more scientific) they chose to let their gap of knowledge be filled by that instead of the fictional Christian theory's. To conclude religion is a means of answering unanswerable questions and that is the reason it exists.


Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I look forward to your arguments,
Debate Round No. 1


Please post your opening statement.


Thank you for the debate.

People see events and then they attempt to explain why they happen. This is true for religion or science.

And yet even modern science is not science they conducted in the 1900's. We are not here to argue which system is better than the other. But I do want to address the issue that Science is a god of the gaps. Any explanation we use is filler to what we do not understand.

Countless theories accepted among the Scientific community eventually lost favor. Planet Vulcan was an explanation for the wobble of Mercury. replaced by Einstein's Relativity.

Scurvy a disease from a lack of vitamin C. Was thought to be an imbalance of blood.

People, to include doctors and scientist, explain how things work in the terms they have previously accepted.

When Pro argues that one explanation was just to fill in our understanding until something better came along, s/he is making the assumption that understanding has been attained. What we know today may just be a filler till a hundred years from now a better, differently worded explanations comes along.

If anything Religion was an important step in garnering a search for understanding the world. Churches often had the time and money to devote to physical research. It is not surprising in history to find priests such as Mendel or Lemaitre adding valuable theories to the collective domain we call Science.

many Scientist were Religious. Religious centers were often seen as learning centers. The Islamic Moors to the Enlightenment era Christians did not see explaining the path of the planets and stars as doing away with God. They did not see explaining hydraulics or plant life cycles as doing away with God.

Having accepted God's existence, they saw their hours of observation and experiments as way to discern how God makes the universe. What the Natural Laws God laid down are.

Debate Round No. 2


Just too clear a few things up;

  1. At no point am I saying that science is an alternative to religion and the two are mutually exclusive.
  2. This debate isn't about further in history when churches devoted time and money to science, it is about the creation of religion.
In my opinion the Con side is arguing a completely different debate. We are talking about whether religion was created to fill in the gaps of the unknown, not about religious people/groups adding valuable theory's to science (as much as I agree with this it is in my opinion irrelevant).
My example was given to show that religion must have been created to fill in the gaps of the unknown because as soon as the gaps in their knowledge is filled will something more credible in their minds (not necessarily more scientific) they abandon religion or at least part of it.
This means that an increase in the number of unanswered questions, answered and the number of the previously unexplained, explained eventually the role of religion will decrease and maybe someday diminish.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mhykiel 1 year ago
Zero the honor is yours. I was at work and failed to reply to the challenge in the few minutes it was present. Good luck to the both of you.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
Pro's position is a common mis-perception, IMHO.
Do you know of anything else that is used to explain the unexplainable apart from the x variable in Maths.
Religion attempted to respond to what was/is there through the clumsy maginations of the primitive primate. Religion was felt and real in its infancy and not a fanciful romantic poem as the Pro position will attempt to convince us of. I am sorry I missed the chance to debate this.
Posted by Mhykiel 1 year ago
I'll debate you.
Posted by liam2505 1 year ago
Sure please do except Stupidape
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Religion is a mutation in my opinion. That via a series of mutations religion evolved. Those mutations dominated and selected out early hominids with less belief. I'll accept the debate if you want and argue from the above point of view.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
I agree with pro but am interested to see what the contender has to say
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.