Transcript Sinnott-Armstrong’s ‘argument from ignorance’

Sinnott-Armstrong’s
‘argument from ignorance’
• Setting things up
– If there’s no evidence for x we shouldn’t believe that x exists.
– There’s no evidence for God.
– Therefore, we shouldn’t believe that God exists.
• The general principle is especially true when the
entity is unusual.
• And it holds true even when the entity is thought to
be beyond the realm of evidence.
– cf. the Great Pumpkin
• And Sinnott-Armstrong has argued that Craig’s
arguments don’t work, and that neither religious
experience nor miracles will help.
From agnosticism to atheism
• So far, all Sinnott-Armstrong has got is we
shouldn’t believe that God exists.
• But he does not yet have we should believe that
God doesn’t exist.
– The difference here is between mere nonacceptance and outright denial.
• So he must go on to argue that the lack of
evidence for God’s existence ends up as
evidence against God’s existence.
• With God, he argues, absence of evidence
really is evidence of absence.
Arguments from ignorance
• Concluding that something doesn’t exist simply
because there’s no evidence for it can sometimes
be fallacious.
– example: gold on Uranus
• But sometimes it’s okay.
– example: pot-bellied pig on my head
• So, take the case of God: is it more like the ‘gold
on Uranus’ case, or more like the ‘pot-bellied pig
on my head’ case?
– Is it the sort of thing that we can expect to find evidence
of?
• The crucial claim: if God existed, there would be
better evidence than there is.
Reasons for providing evidence
• Why think God would provide better
evidence?
– It would help with “nagging doubts”
– It would take away fears of loved ones ending up
in Hell.
– “It would bring assurance and solace”.
– There would be less wrongdoing.
• These are all reasons to think that, if God
existed, the evidence would be better than it
is.
Drawbacks?
• But wouldn’t it lead to problems?
• Wouldn’t it leave no room for faith?
– No, having good evidence for something doesn’t
displace faith (e.g., wife’s love).
• Wouldn’t it “take away our freedom not to
believe”?
– If good evidence takes away freedom, it only takes
away insignificant freedom (e.g., science teachers).
• So: there seem to be strong reasons for God
to provide better evidence, and no strong
reasons for staying hidden.
Craig’s response
• The crucial premise (if God existed, the evidence
would be better than it is) is “enormously presumptuous”.
• God could provide an obvious revelation (e.g., neon
cross in the sky).
• God is not interested in mere theism; God is interested
in a personal relationship.
• And “there is no reason at all to think that if God were
to make His existence more manifest, more people
would come into a saving relationship with Him”
• People might respond negatively to God’s ‘coming out
of hiding’.
• So Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument rests on “pure
speculation”.
Craig’s response
• Compare our world with a world where God
provides an obvious revelation.
• Craig seems to grant that more people would
accept God’s existence in the other world.
– Although maybe not: see the quote from Romans.
• But Craig is skeptical that, in such a world,
there would be more people entering into a
saving relationship with God.
• Since God has saving people as a serious
priority (his top priority?), he’d opt for this
world over the other world.
Sinnott-Armstrong’s response
• God has good reason to care about mere theism.
– Even if God would like a personal relationship, there
are still reasons to give people evidence so that they can
at least be theists.
– Reasons like that it would cut down on wrongdoing.
– And God needs to at least bring people to theism in
order to get the personal relationship going.
• More people would follow God
– Current followers would remain followers.
– Of everyone else, at least some of them would become
followers.
– Maybe people would have a negative reaction to a neon
cross in the sky, but surely God could find a better way
to bring people to theism and to a personal relationship.