Birdie wrote:Well there is a topic on this about atheist's arguments. But I think a Christian topic would be more useful since most of the people on this forum are Christians.
I'll start. 
One of the arguments that I think quite a few people use and that REALLY bugs me if saying something like “Science can't explain (insert fact). So then it must be God.” I don't think many Christian arguments are bad… but this one is a pain.
Ancient Greeks used gods to explain things that science couldn't explain yet. I just think if you use that argument it makes it seem to make that today's Christians are no different from the Greeks. Plus if science does find a way to more logically prove (insert fact) it would make Christians seem less educated. 
What you are describing is commonly known as the "God of the Gaps" argument and it is a poor argument for Christians to use.
Invoking the need for God to explain something that is currently scientifically unexplainable, carries with it the corallary that if and when a scientific explanation comes forth, then on the same basis, put forth by Christians for the evidence of God, the argument then, in the mind of some, is that by virtue of the reducing of things that are unexplainable God must not exist.
This is an erroneous argument itself, but because it mirrors the "god of the Gaps" it is thrown back at those making the original claim.
This doesn't apply at all levels though. The argument for first cause and Intelligent Design are close to this argument and likely unknowable at any point in the future with scientific certainty.
A good example of the God of the Gaps argument recently refuted is the flight of bees. I wish I had a nickle for every sermon illustration and tract that pointed to the fact at the time that there remained no aerodynamic reason for bees to fly. They violated all the known laws in terms of wing surface, lift, wieght ratios etc. So, many Christians pointed to that as "proof" of something science could not explain and therefore evidence for the existence of God.
Of course, just this year, the puzzle has been solved and an explanation rendered.
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ ... fight.html
Many of these types of arguments from some Christians stem from some apparant need to put science and Christianity against each other. It's just not necessary to do. Truth about the creation is no less true than that revealed directly by the creator. Where we run into problems is that Science is imperfect and is always adjusting and aligning as more information is know and more testing done. Religion is less flexible although even it is flexible over time when it becomes apparant that some teaching or doctrine is unteneble, and when that happens it is because of the same human element in interpretting Scripture which is not always perfect.
So I would agree with your observation that the God of the Gaps argument is often an appeal to the unknown or mysterious to substantiate the need for a God to provide an explanation and fill that Gap with some meaning or belief that makes the world make sense.
While it is a mistake for Christians to make, it is also an mistake for atheists to appeal to that mistake as foundational evidence for the rise of religion to the ignoring of all the other sources and appeals to reason for the existence of God.
Arrogance and condescension in those who have rejected God's existence for themselves and claim God is for the weak minded who are not as enlightened as they are is just as ugly as Christians who view science as a threat to their beliefs and therefore are willing to believe the worst of it and will continue doing so regardless of further developments.
The sad things is, probably somewhere in a Christian Church this week, some well-intentioned but misinformed pastor probably used the bublebee illustration and got a few amens.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
