Argument from personal incredulity.

[Unwardil]

This is one I've come across in apologists that baffles me a little, generally because it comes from otherwise quite intelligent people.

'I can't understand how the universe could exist in it's current state without some kind of guiding hand in the mix' is a good way of summing it up, therefore any belief in the supernatural is justified.

Obviously the second step is one which spans universes, but I'm mostly interested in the first one. How do you convince someone that it isn't a compelling or even a valid position to take. My usual argument is to point out that there are any number of other things a person doesn't understand, yet there is ample evidence to suggest that somebody does know what they're talking about.

Cars are a great example for me. I know that you put gasoline in one end, turn the key and apply pressure to the accelerator in order to make them go and while I have passing familiarity with some of the theoretical physics involved in this process, I wouldn't know a Catalytic converter from a fuel distributor. Yet the car works, and when it breaks, I take it to a mechanic who makes it work again, so obviously somebody is aware of how cars work, even if I personally don't.

Likewise with the universe, I can either trust the word of a priest who says that he has a direct line to god, but who, if I asked, couldn't so much as call down a mildly impressive light show on command, or I can trust the scientist who, with the applied theories painstakingly learned over time can facilitate instant trans continental communication and send an astronaut to the moon and back safely. Given that cavernous gulf between the two results, I'm inclined to believe the word of the scientists when they assert that yeah, actually, the universe can totally exist on it's own thanks very much.

I've had very little success either articulating that or being convincing with it, so I'm just wondering if anyone else has run into this argument or found a good counter argument to it.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I think the most straightforward analogy is to ancient mythology. They couldn't conceive of how lightning could happen, so it was god. They couldn't understand fire: we stole it from gods.

 

[Unwardil]

But that by it's self isn't evidence that we should believe science knows what it's talking about, that only demonstrates that we needn't take the priest's word for it.

 

[Nelson]

I don't know if it would be helpful, but it seems the most straightforward way is to point out exactly where the argument fails. The argument takes the form, I don't understand how X works, therefore nobody can understand how X works. The hidden premise here is:

If I come across something that I do not understand or can't explain, nobody can understand or explain it.

If this premise were true, then the argument would be sound, but the premise is clearly false.

I think you are already on the right track with the car example. Really, any example of modern technology that the individual likely uses, but doesn't understand fully would be a good analogy to bring up. The problem is that most people putting forward this fallacy won't even understand that it is a fallacy when you point out exactly which premise fails, but I suppose it can't hurt to try. This is the route I would take at least.

 

[RichardMNixon]

But that by it's self isn't evidence that we should believe science knows what it's talking about, that only demonstrates that we needn't take the priest's word for it.

It shows that the "I don't understand, therefore guiding hand" has been used many times in the past and has never worked. Then doesn't the scientist just have to pull out a Jacob's ladder?



Boom, lightning is from nature, understood by science; not from god. It just sounds like god of the gaps to me, am I missing something?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is one I've come across in apologists that baffles me a little, generally because it comes from otherwise quite intelligent people.

I think the bolded bit is part of your answer right there. Someone who is smart can generally rely on their "common sense" in order to evaluate things they run into in their day-to-day lives. Up to a certain point, that's really all they need to use. Sometimes they fail to recognize where they've gone past that point and continue to rely on that "common sense" even when it misleads them.

 

[Ibis3]

I don't know if it would be helpful, but it seems the most straightforward way is to point out exactly where the argument fails. The argument takes the form, I don't understand how X works, therefore nobody can understand how X works. The hidden premise here is:

If I come across something that I do not understand or can't explain, nobody can understand or explain it.

If this premise were true, then the argument would be sound, but the premise is clearly false.

I think you are already on the right track with the car example. Really, any example of modern technology that the individual likely uses, but doesn't understand fully would be a good analogy to bring up. The problem is that most people putting forward this fallacy won't even understand that it is a fallacy when you point out exactly which premise fails, but I suppose it can't hurt to try. This is the route I would take at least.

I'm not sure it's adequate because there are things scientists haven't explained yet--the most crucial issues for theists (how is existence itself possible, how did life come from non-life, what happened "before" the big bang)--and may never be able to do so for some of them. The faulty argument goes something like this:

No one has been able to figure out a natural explanation of x . [may be a false premise depending on the subject]
No one will ever be able to do so. [definitely a false premise because we have no knowledge of what science may be able to explain in the future]
The reason no one can explain it with a natural explanation is because there isn't one. [this is the essential faulty premise of the argument]
If there is no natural explanation, there must be a supernatural explanation.
The supernatural explanation must be the god I believe in already.

How do people justify and rationalise coming to the conclusion of premise #3? Obviously, it hasn't been shown to be the case in the past (the lightning example is a good one to illustrate that). It's beyond understanding to me how anyone can live in the modern world, knowing how much we now know compared to what we knew and come to the conclusion that we've reached the limit of our understanding.

So, how does someone go from

No one can currently explain x using a natural explanation.
to
Therefore, there is no natural explanation for x. ?

ETA: or even

No human can ever explain x using a natural explanation.
to
Therefore, there is no natural explanation for x. ?

 

[Nelson]

I'm not sure it's adequate because there are things scientists haven't explained yet--the most crucial issues for theists (how is existence itself possible, how did life come from non-life, what happened "before" the big bang)--and may never be able to do so for some of them. The faulty argument goes something like this:

Ah, I see your point. Perhaps there is an important distinction to be made between the large questions that have yet to be answered and the technological analogy. I guess the appropriate course of action would be to point to the historical evidence. The large questions 200 years ago (say, the variety of life) have since been explained. If you look back, people playing god of the gaps have been shown to be wrong again and again. You also have problems of falsifiability with the god answer. If we are one day able to explain everything about the universe with some grand unified theory, but hit a fundamental wall at some point, such as the origin of the universe itself, it makes no sense to answer this question by substituting a deity that is by definition unknowable, to explain what is already unknowable.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I think the issue is that people conflate personal incredulity with physical impossibility. Really, how can you expect lay people to distinguish between the two?

When I say that a bullet travelling at 400 m/s doesn't have the necessary velocity to escape the Earth's gravity well, isn't that just an argument from personal incredulity? I personally don't know how a bullet with such a velocity can escape the Earth? For a lay person, how is that any different than claims of evolution, abiogenesis or cosmology?

Cargo cults...

 

[nemesiss]

i think for most part is has to do that humans are hierachical group species, with leaders and followers where a leader can also be a folllower of another leader.
it kinda like the rank in the militiairy. naturally it follows that even the top is actually a follower, where they assume that it follows another leader which doesn't seem to be there: aka your god. while in reality the top leader follows the input from his followers.

this kind of thinking is something we can't really shake of easily, no matter how intelligent you may be.
perhaps this is why those muslim extremists are able to recruit well educated university muslim student.

the way they were raised might be a factor in it too.
the people may be able to learn stuff well, but when it is something they can't handle... there intelligence fails them, result: "goddidit".

 

[simonecuttlefish]

I think the most straightforward analogy is to ancient mythology. They couldn't conceive of how lightning could happen, so it was god. They couldn't understand fire: we stole it from gods.

Spot on.

'I can't understand how the universe could exist in it's current state without some kind of guiding hand in the mix' is a good way of summing it up, therefore any belief in the supernatural is justified.

No, it is not. It's that simple.

Humans are pattern seekers. We as a species can not help but search for "this makes that happen" explanations. We invented gods as a "logical" way of explaining events we have no current "real world" explanations for yet, but still fit comfortably within the realms of our own experience. Male gods, female gods, protectors, law bringers, all the stuff we are familiar with. My signature says "I have no requirement for the supernatural or magic to explain anything, finding purpose in life other than trying to enjoy it, fantasies to explain wonder, fear that reason might trivialise me, or demand of wonders greater than those that are evident."

But it's way more than that. I have no REQUIREMENT for scientific evidences of anything either. I enjoy them, as I like seeing puzzles solved, not because my life would be meaningless without them. I am curious about them for no other reason than I am curious at all. I don't know about radio physics, but some people do. Maybe no one has yet described a method of providing repeatable experimental evidence for some "thing", but that should never equal, "thus god exists".

What if we attribute rainfall and crop growth to a god that is happy with us, because no one told us about, or defined, the hydrological cycle yet. Then, it stops raining and drought happens. How do we make god happy? Kill someone! YAYYY! Lets try that! So you cut out someones heart, hold it aloft and shout, "Here Y'are god". A week later it rains. Thus, it is clearly evident that sacrificing humans makes god happy and he makes it rain....... for a while.

But it stops raining again in a few years, and there is another drought. "We know how to fix that though" everyone cries, and the blood runs down the alter once more. But, it doesn't rain. "Ohhhhhhh, god must be very very very sad, we need to kill some more people!" See, it all makes perfect sense. So you kill another, and another, and another, then 10, then 100, and finally it rains. "See, you kill people and god makes it rain, DUMMEH! God was just really pissed off this time prolly, so lets find out why." And on and on it goes, until there is a massive list of things that piss god off to different degrees, placed in 'pisses-him-off-this-much' order, and then rituals are proscribed to deal with them, depending on severity. All of these rules and performance art rituals reinforce the god-is-pissed idea and it just builds. The idea that god has nothing to do with rainfall becomes the ultimate crime, because that might piss him off so much it could never rain again. OH NOES!!1!!!!1! Better kill everyone who says that quick bloody smart! Oh, and we will be needing a special ritual for that one as well.

Science demands evidence that can be tested and repeated. This is true pattern seeking. This is what I like about science. I don't need scientific explanations, but I like them as they satisfy my inner pattern seeker.

"God did it" is profoundly empty and satisfies nothing, especially the pattern seeker inside. Pattern seeking is one of the very clearly defined aspects of being human.

'I can't understand how the universe could exist in it's current state without some kind of guiding hand in the mix' is a good way of summing it up, therefore any belief in the supernatural is justified.

There is nothing there. It is hollow. It is a little sad as well.

 

[borrofburi]

But it stops raining again in a few years, and there is another drought. "We know how to fix that though" everyone cries, and the blood runs down the alter once more. But, it doesn't rain. "Ohhhhhhh, god must be very very very sad, we need to kill some more people!" See, it all makes perfect sense. So you kill another, and another, and another, then 10, then 100, and finally it rains. "See, you kill people and god makes it rain, DUMMEH! God was just really pissed off this time prolly, so lets find out why." And on and on it goes, until there is a massive list of things that piss god off to different degrees, placed in 'pisses-him-off-this-much' order, and then rituals are proscribed to deal with them, depending on severity. All of these rules and performance art rituals reinforce the god-is-pissed idea and it just builds. The idea that god has nothing to do with rainfall becomes the ultimate crime, because that might piss him off so much it could never rain again. OH NOES!!1!!!!1! Better kill everyone who says that quick bloody smart! Oh, and we will be needing a special ritual for that one as well.

The above quote is a good illustration of confirmation bias in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u34BhEgO_es

 

[Andiferous]

The explanations didn't just arise out of thin air...

Don't overlook humankind's propensity for story-telling. Just imagine how boring things would be otherwise without the television or computer, or even a bit of reading and writing to keep our heads busy. But at some point there was no ability to record these stories, and they were passed down through generations by memory alone. They took on significance because they were very old and traditional tales, but at some point no one can really say which parts of the stories are based on truth. And points are lost and reinterpreted. Like King Arthur.

I think history is one big game of telephone.