Ignorant Creationist Tactics

One of the most beloved of all creationist fallacies is argumentum ad ignorantiam, also called the argument from ignorance. Creationists very often are ignorant of the theories that they are attacking in strawman arguments. Many American high schools have avoided teaching evolutionary theory, and matters are made worse by the deliberate misinformation on websites such as those run by the misnamed Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis.

However, argumentum ad ignorantiam is not about ignorance of the facts, per se. Instead it refers to the false dichotomy that is created by ignoring, or being ignorant of, the actual alternatives.

Strictly, the term proof applies only to mathematics and specially constructed logical syllogisms. However, since disproof is a legitimate term, I shall use proof – with air-quotes implied.

A proposition, or premise, is either true or false. Needless to say, there can be many more false propositions than true propositions.

A false premise can be either disproven, not yet disproven, or logically impossible to disprove.

A true premise can be either proven, not yet proven, or technically impossible to prove.

The argumentum ad ignorantiam erroneously assumes that failure of disproof indicates that a claim is true, or that failure of proof indicates that a claim is false. These combinations are included in the possibilities, but they are not the only possibilities.

The argumentum ad ignorantiam is frequently implied, rather than being explicitly stated, in common, fallacious strategies used by creationists.

Even though the underlying assumptions are not stated, creationist attacks on cosmology, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all motivated by the deep-seated, theistic belief that only two alternatives obtain – namely current scientific understanding OR a creator.

I have most frequently encountered theistic demands that atheists must prove biological evolution. The fallacious implication is that failure to do so will prove creationism, and hence prove God’s existence. Since there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution, this is a preposterous challenge – particularly in view of YouTube’s 500 character limit, and despite the possibility of uploading video after video after video.

There is no point in attempting to fulfill a patently ridiculous request, particularly when creationists will dismiss all explanations out of hand. Better, I think, to call the creationist on the fallacy and to refer him (possibly her) to particular videos on the science channels, to a museum, or to books, such as Dawkins’ latest.

The flip side of this challenge is the creationist assumption that denying or ridiculing evidence for evolution is equivalent to disproof of evolution, and hence proof of creationism, and thus of God’s existence. In making this assumption, the creationist reveals the depth of his or her ignorance of scientific method. Disproof of any scientific hypothesis entails experimental falsification. Ridicule does not count, although it is undoubtedly emotionally satisfying to those whose ignorance renders them unaware of the futility of the tactic.

Another fallacious challenge is that atheists must prove that god does not exist. The assumption is that failure to disprove god is equivalent to proving god.

Not so fast! First, this demand is shifting the burden of proof onto those who merely do not accept the positive claim for God’s existence.

Second, it is logically impossible to prove that something that does not exist does not, in fact, exist. I’ll make that simpler. It is logically impossible to prove a non-existence. It is for this reason that modern western courts assume innocence unless guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prove the non-existence of the purported deity would require the scouring of every inch of the entire universe and beyond. As such, the all-too-familiar religionist taunt is utterly illogical.

Don’t take the bait! There are ample other reasons for doubting the existence of a creator deity. The most obvious is the fact that something powerful enough to create an entire universe should have left evidence that cannot be explained in any other way. It is the very lack of evidence that has caused more scientists, particularly eminent scientists, to be atheistic than any other group.

Every time that a creationist or religionist uses any of these arguments, or evokes an apologetic argument -- and all are refuted -- they are effectively admitting that they have no evidence for the existence of their mythical creator.

Agnosticism is LESS rational than Atheism

"So your stance, if I understand it correctly, is that yes, indeed, the likelihoods of the existences of a Judeo-Islamo-Christian God, unicorns, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters are all approximately equal. Well, see, I do think this stance is frivolous. Do you really feel that this God that we’re talking about, this God that is the basis of three religions that have profoundly shaped western civilization for around 3,000 years, that this God can be dismissed in the same breath as an intellectual prop fabricated by some graduate student? Now, I’m not saying that 3,000 years of backstory means that you must, lemming-like, go along with 89% of the rest of the population of this country and *believe* in God. But, surely you must recognize the difference here between these two hypotheses?

I guess what I’m saying is that, out of respect for the rather large majority of thinking, reasoning, good human beings who believe, I’m willing to go to greater lengths to keep my mind open about the existence of a personal God than that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think the collective belief of millions adds up to evidence that I’m willing to consider despite the fact that it’s not empirical."[s]

Response: Courtesy is fine, but being courteous is not an argument for agnosticism over atheism. The fact that the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God has prospered over unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters speaks only to The Clerical Publicity Machine and is not an argument for the existence of the purported deity claimed by that machine. It’s a fallacious “argument to popularity” to hold that the fact that many have been taught to believe in this Judeo-Islamo-Christian conception signifies that the teachings are valid.

If the prevailing publicity structure had instead insisted upon the existence of the Great Unicorn in the Sky, on which we would all Ride to Heaven, then priests (presumably adorned with uni-horned hats) would be extolling the virtues of this Mythical, Supernatural, All-Loving Creator of Humans.

On the basis of logic alone, it could be argued that the agnostic view, which holds that it simply is not knowable whether or not whatever deity exists, is more philosophically rigorous than stating that there is no God.

However, certain *falsified* falsibiable creation claims are made about the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God, so the *falsification* of these claims renders Atheism the most rational conclusion. By corollary, other creation mythologies, as well as the practical need for interventionist deities are falsified by the same scientific findings.

Agnostics resort to Humean skepticism in their arguments that take the position that absolute uncertainty is impossible, so agnosticism is the only correct stance. This argument is problematic. It ignores the original meaning of agnosticism, substituting a circular definition that relies upon the impossibility of absolute certainty. Whatever baseline degree of uncertainty obtains, the same base level applies to all epistemic enquiries. However, not all knowledge is equally uncertain, so it is not useful to tar all understanding with the same brush.

Further, if , at minimum, an uninvolved creator deity existed, then that deity has interacted with the physical world and, so, is necessarily physical. It follows that there ought to be evidence for a deity. The so-called supernatural was invented in order to remove the non-evidence for a deity as far from refutation as possible. Although it would be dissonant for theists and deists to admit that evidence should exist, the apologetic necessity for a supernatural excuse points supports the positive conclusion that no deity exists.

I grow tired of being polite to people merely because they have been brainwashed into collective belief in a non-existent, demanding, invented deity.

From here.