Sinnott-Armstrong’s ‘argument from ignorance’

1. 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.

2. 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 non-acceptance 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Craig’s response • The crucial premise (if God existed, the evidence would be better than it is) is “enormously presump-tuous”. • 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”.

7. 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.

8. 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.