1.) The problem with the God in the gaps is that we name something divine which deserves to be brought to light as caused naturally.
2.) Naturalism: once you’ve given an account of where the thing came from and what it did, what else is there to explain about it?
Both can be interpreted as a natural theology that sees God as the cognitive horizon. St. Thomas did not have a horizon metaphor but his metaphor of God as the light of intelligence comes to the same thing: both are things that objects must enter to be seen but, in entering, must be divided from what they enter.
In the First Way, this horizon-light is suggested by the fact that moved movers can be infinite while never being total. In the Second Way, it is suggested by the fact that an efficient cause is necessary beyond the ones that form intelligible models and systems of interaction. In the Fourth Way, God is horizon-light within which we can place any transcendental predicate which has a relative relation to another and thereby forming a whole from the multitude. The horizon-light is that in which things arise (3rd) or are intelligible by their ends (whether this is in existence or operation… the Fifth Way)
The Berkeleyan theory of the world as a sort of thought-veil that God projectively-perceives and we passively-perceive can be taken in the same way. For a separated intelligence prior to the beatific vision, this veil is the the intellect itself onto which God project-perceives the forms that
The (underappreciated) Medieval problem: If these are all creatures, are they substances or relations? At the level of metaphor, you might as well ask the congregation whether the veil hides the bride or identifies her.