Lack of a Better Explanation Is Not Evidence for Your Explanation


Barry Goldberg 

Lack of a Better Explanation Is Not Evidence for Your Explanation

I have touched upon this in previous posts (see God of the Gaps and A Response to the Argument from Design, for example), but time and again we see theists offering as evidence (or even as “proof”) for the existence of a god of some sort the supposed fact that science is unable to explain something. Whether it be the origin of the universe itself, the origin of life on this planet, the apparent complexity of life, the existence of consciousness, or what have you, the argument is made over and over (and over) again that this supposed inability of science to explain something somehow “moves the needle toward,” “provides evidence of” or even “proves the existence of” some sort of creator or designer.

Now, aside from the fact that most people who make these sorts of assertions are typically ignorant as regard to what science actually says about the supposedly inexplicable mysteries and are instead just parroting talking points they have heard from other theists, the crucial point that gets ignored by these people is that the simple fact (if true) that science cannot currently explain something, whether it be the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, how consciousness works, or what have you, does not, by itself, in any way whatsoever “point to the existence of a creator,” since we have absolutely zero independent evidence whatsoever that a “creator” actually exists or even could exist.

Claiming that our inability to explain something is somehow evidence of some other explanation for which there is no independent evidence is the very definition of the Argument from ignorance fallacy. For example:

  • “I saw a shadowy figure out of the corner of my eye that science can’t explain — it must be a Ghost!” Wrong, unless you can first show that ghosts do, or at the very least possibly could, exist. If you have no independent evidence for ghosts, there’s no way that ghosts can be the best (or even a possible) explanation.
  • “I saw a light in the sky moving in a manner that science can’t explain — it must be an alien spacecraft from another star system!” Wrong again, unless you can first show that aliens from other star systems are, or at the very least possibly could be, visiting our planet. If you have no independent evidence that aliens from other star systems are visiting us, then there’s no way that aliens can be the best (or even a possible) explanation.
  • “Life originated on earth some 3.5 billion years ago and science can’t explain how it happened — it must be the result of God who created the universe!” Wrong, wrong, wrong, unless you can first show that such a creator does, or even possibly could, exist in the first place. If you have no independent evidence for such a creator, there’s no way that a creator can be the best (or even a possible) explanation.
  • Etc., etc., etc.

To reiterate, lack of an explanation cannot, by itself, be evidence for some other explanation if that other explanation has no other evidence to support it.

On a related note, those who assert a god of some sort as the best explanation for something fail to understand that they are actually just offering a proposed answer to the problem and not actually an explanation. If “God did it,” how did He do it? Where did God come from? What is God made of, if not matter or energy? What does it actually mean to exist “outside of space and time”? What is it, exactly, about God that lets Him be the “Uncaused Cause” or “Prime Mover”?

No explanation. Just an assertion that leads to lots of additional unanswered questions.


-------------

 · 5y

People who use that argument fail to realize that not being able (yet) to find an alternative answer does not mean that a god is the real answer. Much less, that their specific god is the answer. It's always about *their* god, is it not?

They fail to understand that in a courtroom, finding no evidence against the defendant does not "prove" that the defendant committed the perfect crime, which would in turn "explain" the lack of evidence.

And no, "The defendant *looks* guilty", and therefore, "I *know* it in my *heart* that he did it", and besides, "If he did not did it, who *else* could have done it?" does not count as evidence that would even be considered, much less accepted.

It does not work that way. Nor am I required to explain a mysterious, unsolved crime in order to prove that the defendant is innocent.

Their claim. Their burden of proof.

But just try and tell them that. :\


---------------


 
 · 5y

Exactly. What I find most interesting, though, is that instead of acknowledging how science can now explain much of what previously was used to prove the existence of God, these people will instead claim that science is actually discovering even more stuff that it can't explain every day, and therefore the evidence for God’s existence is actually growing instead of getting ever smaller.

Moving the goalposts, indeed.


---------------


 · 1y

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

— Introduction to Logic, Copi, 1953, Page 95

I can contend that there was no meteor strike in recent geological times just by pointing at the **absence** of an impact crater.

When evidence is **expected**, then yes, absence of evidence can be used as evidence for absence. Aren’t people’s gods much more powerful that a puny meteor…?


==============


Marajevomanash .
 · Aug 2

Surely a caveman looking at a person disembarking from the airplane would treat him like a God.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted)

Image
Barry Goldberg  ·  Following Author of books on atheism and pocket watches Updated 2y As an atheist, have you ever looked at the world and thought it looks designed? Just over 200 years ago, an English clergyman, Christian philosopher and philosopher named William Paley published a book entitled  Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity , in which he laid out what has now come to be generally known as the  watchmaker analogy . In short, he noted that if one were to walk along a beach and discover a pocket watch in the sand, one could deduce — simply by inspecting how well all of its parts worked together — that it was an artifice that had been designed by somebody and not just some random rock. Thus, he went on to argue, we can similarly look at the complexity of the entire natural world and, simply by inspecting how well all of its parts work together, deduce that it, too, is an artifice that had been designed by somebody (name...
Read more

Contradictions

Image
 ---- : http://packham.n4m.org/contra.htm Last revision: July 15, 2018 Major Contradictions in Mormonism (plus some minor ones) Compiled by Richard Packham Why are contradictions important?      Contradictions are a mark of falseness. If two statements contradict each other, then one of them must be false. If both statements come from the same person, then the suspicion must arise that the person is lying (or at least grossly mistaken) in one of them, or perhaps both.      If both of the contradictory statements are supposed to be from God, or from God's spokesman (a prophet or a scripture) then we are justified in considering this supposed spokesman to be fraudulent, since God is not supposed to lie or to make contradictory statements. "For I am the Lord, I change not;..."  - Malachi 3:6 "God is not a man, that he should lie;.. hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"  - Num 23:19 "...with [God] is no variableness, neither s...
Read more

Top Ten Reasons to Be an Athiest

  The Top Ten Reasons to Be an Atheist (in no particular order) are: Drum roll please… It’s obvious that all world religions are the product of extremely ignorant (not stupid) near barbarians who didn’t understand much about the world around them and made up stories to explain things the best they could. We no longer believe that the universe is made of four elements, that our health is governed by the balance of our four humors, that the Earth is the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, that mental illness is caused by demonic possession, etc. Why, then, should we still cling to ancient ideas about gods? It’s obvious that most people who say they believe in God believe in the God that is worshiped by the culture in which they grew up. And everybody is convinced that their religion is the only “right” one. They can’t all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong. It’s obvious that the universe is just too vast and full of stuff not in any way related to h...
Read more