The Argument from Incredulity - Avoid it at All Costs When You Debate Evolution
The Argument from Incredulity - Avoid it at All Costs When You Debate Evolution
The Argument from Incredulity represents a dangerous trap into which many online debaters fall. The basic premise for an Argument from Incredulity is this:
"I don't understand how "Y" could have happened, therefore it did not happen."
Simple Examples
The Argument from Incredulity often rears its' ugly head at the end of a series of points, some of which may even be valid. As a summary statement, a debater may assert:
"I don't know why a loving God could allow babies to die in war, therefore there is no God."
The debater makes an admission: he/she doesn't understand how to reconcile innocent deaths with the concept of a loving God. That's neither a valid or invalid statement; it's an expression of a the debater's point of view. It can't be gainsaid. If a person doesn't understand something and admits such, no argument can be made. However, the conclusion that based on this lack of understanding no God can exist is specious.
"I don't understand how my cell phone works, therefore I don't believe in cell phones."
This example is uncommon, but the point is made. As a percentage of the population, very few people can explain the physics of a cell phone. This ignorance isn't enough to prevent millions from using the devices.
Avoiding the Argument from Incredulity
Avoid the Argument from Incredulity by understanding both sides of an issue.
"I don't understand how "Y" could have happened. Here's why some people think it happened. Here's why I disagree with them.
This approach opens the door for rational discourse rather than emotional reactions. Without question, more work is required to build this argument. It can be scary to dig a little deeper.
