Underseer
Contributor
I'm getting so tired of giving the same answer over and over, so I'm trying to write down a decent response in one go.
There are many, many arguments from Christians and Muslims that boil down to "you can't explain X, therefore Y is proved."
It doesn't work like that (lucky for you). If you want to prove Y, you have to actually prove Y. What you don't know about X cannot prove Y. You can't get knowledge from ignorance. In order to avoid the raw emotions involved in dealing with the truth claims of your religion, let's look at a truth claim from another religion. That way, your emotions won't get in the way and you can evaluate the quality of the argument dispassionately. Hopefully from there, you will start to see what is wrong with similar arguments from other religions and from your own religion.
Lightning
Lightning proves Zeus. How else do you explain lightning? Ah ha! You can't explain lightning! Therefore I have definitely proved Zeus! You don't have an explanation for lightning, but I do, therefore my explanation is correct, therefore Zeus is proved! Now let's celebrate by sacrificing an animal to Zeus at the temple!
Here's the thing, the ancient Greeks could not possibly have known the real answer for lightning because Benjamin Franklin was thousands of years in their future. Heck, I'm not sure you could explain electricity to them without recreating all the experiments done by other people prior to Franklin. To them, Zeus really would have been the best possible explanation for lightning, right?
No.
If you don't know the answer to something, then the only honest answer is "I don't know."
If the ancient Greeks wanted to prove that Zeus made lightning, first they would have had to provide evidence of Zeus, then they would have had to provide evidence of Zeus making lightning. They were able to do neither of those things, so the only reasonable answer they could have given was "I don't know where lightning comes from." Had they done that, they would not have looked like fools after Franklin.
I'm sure they would have been tempted to say "But look at the lightning. That should be all the proof you need! You've seen the proof for yourself! Why can't you just admit that Zeus is real?" I'm sure this would have sounded entirely reasonable to them, but it still would have been hilariously wrong.
Here's the thing: having an answer doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit. Any fool can provide you with answers to any question provided you're not too picky about whether or not the answer is correct. What matters is having an answer that is independently verifiable. That is precisely what Franklin gave us and which the ancient Greeks never had.
The claim that lightning comes from Zeus may have been emotionally satisfying to the ancient Greeks, but it wasn't an honest answer. It would not have been an honest answer unless and until they could provide evidence of Zeus, then provide evidence of Zeus making lightning. However emotionally satisfying it may have been to the Greeks, the lightning itself was not evidence of Zeus because the existence of lightning is evidence for every explanation for lightning. Lightning itself is not very meaningful evidence of anything other than the existence of lightning.
Zeus is not some kind of default answer that becomes true just because no one you know can offer a better explanation. If you don't know, then the honest answer is "I don't know."
Being uncomfortable with saying "I don't know" is not a valid excuse for making up answers, even if everyone you know worships Zeus.
Other uses of arguments from ignorance
These are formally called
argument from ignorance fallacies. Here are some other examples.
Thunder proves Thor. How else do you explain thunder?
Earthquakes prove that there are dragons in the ground. How else do you explain earthquakes?
The opening of flowers proves pixies. How else do you explain why the flowers open?
The pyramids prove ancient alien visitation. How what do you explain the pyramids?
The fact that some ideas are true and others are false is evidence of God. How else do you explain the existence of truth? (Transcendental argument)
The fact that life exists is evidence of God. How else do you explain the existence of life? (Teleological argument)
Why does something exist rather than nothing? Ah ha! You don't have an answer, therefore I have proved God! (Cosmological argument)
I don't understand why some decisions are moral while other decisions are immoral, therefore the existence of morality proves God. (Argument from morality)
If you pay attention, you will notice this same basic argument being used again and again. It generally can be reduced to "I don't know X, therefore I know Y." Any time you find yourself thinking "Well, how else do you explain it?" then you are probably in danger of committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. Again, if you want to prove Y, you have to actually prove Y. If you think the existence of truth proves God, "How else do you explain it?" won't prove anything. You're going to have to provide evidence of God creating epistemology (not a particular epistemology, but epistemology, and good luck with that).
Conclusion
So why did I say "lucky you" earlier? Because I don't think you've stopped and thought about just how many ridiculous things from other people you would have to explain if logic worked the way you seem to think.
Further, I don't think most of you realize just how insulting and childish these arguments are. "I don't know" should never be an excuse for making up an answer unless you are talking to a toddler playing the "why" game. When you do this to adults, you are effectively treating them like toddlers.
You know what? Maybe it's not right to do that to toddlers either. Maybe we should be honest with toddlers and tell them "I don't know" when we don't.
But here is what is really pathetic about this argument: often another explanation is on offer, and perhaps even supported by evidence. Many times, when modern Christians or Muslims use this argument, it is the equivalent of a modern Greek person saying "lightning proves Zeus" even after Benjamin Franklin conducted his experiment.
And that is part of the reason I think theists deserve pity rather than scorn.
There are many, many arguments from Christians and Muslims that boil down to "you can't explain X, therefore Y is proved."
It doesn't work like that (lucky for you). If you want to prove Y, you have to actually prove Y. What you don't know about X cannot prove Y. You can't get knowledge from ignorance. In order to avoid the raw emotions involved in dealing with the truth claims of your religion, let's look at a truth claim from another religion. That way, your emotions won't get in the way and you can evaluate the quality of the argument dispassionately. Hopefully from there, you will start to see what is wrong with similar arguments from other religions and from your own religion.
Lightning
Lightning proves Zeus. How else do you explain lightning? Ah ha! You can't explain lightning! Therefore I have definitely proved Zeus! You don't have an explanation for lightning, but I do, therefore my explanation is correct, therefore Zeus is proved! Now let's celebrate by sacrificing an animal to Zeus at the temple!
Here's the thing, the ancient Greeks could not possibly have known the real answer for lightning because Benjamin Franklin was thousands of years in their future. Heck, I'm not sure you could explain electricity to them without recreating all the experiments done by other people prior to Franklin. To them, Zeus really would have been the best possible explanation for lightning, right?
No.
If you don't know the answer to something, then the only honest answer is "I don't know."
If the ancient Greeks wanted to prove that Zeus made lightning, first they would have had to provide evidence of Zeus, then they would have had to provide evidence of Zeus making lightning. They were able to do neither of those things, so the only reasonable answer they could have given was "I don't know where lightning comes from." Had they done that, they would not have looked like fools after Franklin.
I'm sure they would have been tempted to say "But look at the lightning. That should be all the proof you need! You've seen the proof for yourself! Why can't you just admit that Zeus is real?" I'm sure this would have sounded entirely reasonable to them, but it still would have been hilariously wrong.
Here's the thing: having an answer doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit. Any fool can provide you with answers to any question provided you're not too picky about whether or not the answer is correct. What matters is having an answer that is independently verifiable. That is precisely what Franklin gave us and which the ancient Greeks never had.
The claim that lightning comes from Zeus may have been emotionally satisfying to the ancient Greeks, but it wasn't an honest answer. It would not have been an honest answer unless and until they could provide evidence of Zeus, then provide evidence of Zeus making lightning. However emotionally satisfying it may have been to the Greeks, the lightning itself was not evidence of Zeus because the existence of lightning is evidence for every explanation for lightning. Lightning itself is not very meaningful evidence of anything other than the existence of lightning.
Zeus is not some kind of default answer that becomes true just because no one you know can offer a better explanation. If you don't know, then the honest answer is "I don't know."
Being uncomfortable with saying "I don't know" is not a valid excuse for making up answers, even if everyone you know worships Zeus.
Other uses of arguments from ignorance
These are formally called
argument from ignorance fallacies. Here are some other examples.Thunder proves Thor. How else do you explain thunder?
Earthquakes prove that there are dragons in the ground. How else do you explain earthquakes?
The opening of flowers proves pixies. How else do you explain why the flowers open?
The pyramids prove ancient alien visitation. How what do you explain the pyramids?
The fact that some ideas are true and others are false is evidence of God. How else do you explain the existence of truth? (Transcendental argument)
The fact that life exists is evidence of God. How else do you explain the existence of life? (Teleological argument)
Why does something exist rather than nothing? Ah ha! You don't have an answer, therefore I have proved God! (Cosmological argument)
I don't understand why some decisions are moral while other decisions are immoral, therefore the existence of morality proves God. (Argument from morality)
If you pay attention, you will notice this same basic argument being used again and again. It generally can be reduced to "I don't know X, therefore I know Y." Any time you find yourself thinking "Well, how else do you explain it?" then you are probably in danger of committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. Again, if you want to prove Y, you have to actually prove Y. If you think the existence of truth proves God, "How else do you explain it?" won't prove anything. You're going to have to provide evidence of God creating epistemology (not a particular epistemology, but epistemology, and good luck with that).
Conclusion
So why did I say "lucky you" earlier? Because I don't think you've stopped and thought about just how many ridiculous things from other people you would have to explain if logic worked the way you seem to think.
Further, I don't think most of you realize just how insulting and childish these arguments are. "I don't know" should never be an excuse for making up an answer unless you are talking to a toddler playing the "why" game. When you do this to adults, you are effectively treating them like toddlers.
You know what? Maybe it's not right to do that to toddlers either. Maybe we should be honest with toddlers and tell them "I don't know" when we don't.
But here is what is really pathetic about this argument: often another explanation is on offer, and perhaps even supported by evidence. Many times, when modern Christians or Muslims use this argument, it is the equivalent of a modern Greek person saying "lightning proves Zeus" even after Benjamin Franklin conducted his experiment.
And that is part of the reason I think theists deserve pity rather than scorn.
