It’s human nature to want answers, and just like us alive today, our ancient ancestors
wanted the same.
They wanted to know where the rain came from, what an earthquake is, how life started, how
the earth was formed, and what the bright lights in the night sky really are…
And they knew…
If we take earthquakes alone, Medieval Christians knew that they’re punishments sent by god;
ancient Greeks knew that they’re caused each time Atlas lost a war against Zeus; and
the ancient Japanese knew that they’re caused by the sudden movement of the Giant Catfish
who carries the world upon its back.
And despite these claims woefully contradicting each other and being completely incompatible,
they’re all actually correct.
That is, if one accepts an Argument from Ignorance.
To state it clearly, an Argument from Ignorance occurs when either a claim is asserted to
be true because it hasn’t yet been proven to be false, or when a claim is asserted to
be false because it hasn’t yet been proven to be true.
For example: You can’t prove that there isn’t a mirror universe of our own; Therefore,
there must be one out there somewhere.
However, in a typical argument from ignorance for a god – the specific type we’re going
to focus on for the rest of this video – a theist will propose a scenario that cannot,
or currently cannot be adequately explained by our current understanding, and they will
then “fill the gap” with an assertion of their god.
Hence this argument is often referred to as the “God of the Gaps” argument.
For example: We currently do not know how life started; Therefore, god created life.
When put this simply it might sound like such a terrible type of argument that no one in
their right mind would use it – in fact, it may even sound like I’m Strawmanning
the argument; but in context and when combined with other fallacies – especially the Black
& White Fallacy, it’s actually really quite difficult to notice…
To give you a better representation of the previous example when in context, here is
the same argument but when presented in a typical conversation: Despite our scientific
advancements and collective knowledge, we still haven’t been able to prove that life
can spontaneously pop out of thin-air; and so therefore, assuming that there wasn’t
a divine intervention is close-minded!
I mean, you don’t know for sure that a god wasn’t involved, and so acting as if one
wasn’t is disingenuous!
You should try and keep an open mind.
Do you see what I mean?
Unless blindingly obvious, It’s not always easy to spot…
Anyhow, without further ado, let’s debunk the hell out of this ignorant argument!
Starting with its biggest flaw.
The most critical flaw in Arguments from Ignorance is that they attempt to shift the Burden of
Proof.
When two parties are in discourse and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the
party who is asserting the claim has the Burden of Proof to substantiate it.
However, in an Argument from Ignorance the claimant insists that the other party must
prove their claim false – and in doing this they attempt to shift the Burden of Proof.
To go back to our life from non-life example, the theist attempts to shift the Burden of
Proof by insisting that unless the other party can prove how life started they’re justified
in believing that their god divinely intervened.
To illustrate the absurdity of shifting the Burden of Proof, in 1952 Bertrand Russell
explained that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that somewhere between the
Earth and Mars orbits a teapot around the Sun, he would not expect anyone to believe
him solely because his assertion couldn’t be proven wrong.
Russell recognized and emphasized that the inability or disinclination to disprove his
celestial teapot doesn’t make his claim valid, nor does it lend it any credence – the
Burden of Proof is with him to substantiate his claim.
Another major recurring flaw with Arguments from Ignorance is that they often commit the
Black & White Fallacy.
A Black & White fallacy occurs when a party presents two choices as the only possibilities,
when in fact additional options cannot be ruled out; and in the case of our life from
non-life example the theist asserts that either life emerged spontaneously from nothing, or
that their specific god created life, without justifying why these two options are the only
possibilities.
In doing this they’re once again attempting to shift the Burden of Proof.
It is the theist that is claiming that only two options exist, and so once again it is
the theist that has the Burden of Proof to substantiate this claim.
It is not up to the disputing party to disprove their assertions or provide additional possibilities.
A third major flaw that many, but no all Arguments from Ignorance have, is that rather than relying
upon universal ignorance, they actually rely upon the personal ignorance of the theist,
and in doing this, they commit a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.
A great example of personal incredulity can be seen in this following clip of Bill O'Reilly:
Tides go out, tides go in… you, can’t explain that!
Because O’Reilly didn’t – or, let’s be honest, probably still doesn’t understand
that the moon’s gravity is responsible for the rise and fall of sea levels, he asserted
that a god – his very specific god, must be involved.
Worse still is that when told why the tides function the way they do, he responded as
follows: Okay, how’d the moon get there?
How’d the moon get there?
Look, you pinheads that attack me for this are just desperate.
How’d the moon get there?
How’d the sun get there?
O’Reilly jumped from a Personal Incredulity to another Personal Incredulity Fallacy, to
yet another Personal Incredulity Fallacy…
As a side note, if you want to see a fantastic YouTuber go to town on O’Reilly, then be
sure to check out Potholer54’s channel.
He’s generally my favorite YouTuber of all time, and his content is simply divine!
I’ve put a link in the description.
Anyhow, to recap, Arguments from Ignorance are flawed because: They attempt to shift
the Burden of Proof; Most, but not all, commit a Black & White Fallacy, and; Many, but not
all, commit a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.
Of course, there are many, many more flaws and objections to be had with Arguments from
Ignorance, but likewise to all arguments, it only takes one premise being discounted
for the entire conclusion to crumble apart, and in the case of all Arguments from Ignorance
it is particularly the shifting of the Burden of Proof that is this devastating flaw.
From, “You can’t prove there’s not a god”, to, “so you think the universe just
exploded from nothing”, to “earthquakes are punishments sent by god”, to – and
as we have used as an example throughout this video – “you think life just came out
of nothing and for no reason?”, the shifting of the Burden of Proof is the nail in the
coffin for Arguments from Ignorance.
Thanks for the view, and before I go I’ll leave you with this remarkably convincing
argument to consider: You can’t prove that Rationally Rules won’t have 100,000 subscribers
by 2018; Therefore, Rationally Rules will have 100,000 subscribers by 2018.
Man, when broke down to their logical form Arguments from Ignorance really do border
on the comical…