As is the case with much New Atheist literature; well-within-the-box-atheist-groupthink-talking-points are passed off as silver bullets, loaded to finally destroy theistic arguments.
Yet, just as often the silver bullets are smoke and mirrors and snake oil—the exciting but fallacious stuff of fiction.
This is not to say that fiction is not useful; it certainly can be fun, exciting and mind expanding. Yet, the issue here is that fiction or faction (part fact and part fiction; the most useful sort of deception) is that Richard Dawkins proposes his very own particular and peculiar standard (which any philosopher or scientist can see right through) and then leaves it to the hoi polloi to utilize whilst refusing to debate the issue in scholarly settings with worthy adversaries. Thus, the Explanation Fallacy is ubiquitously promulgated in cyberspace by those quite pleased to fuel their emotional rejection of God (which is what atheism is) with any bit of wood shavings.
So, what is the Explanation Fallacy?
Richard Dawkins asserts that appealing to God as the explanation for the universe (life, etc.) is fallacious because, in his view, it is no explanation at all. Why is this? Because, so he mis-reasons, it leaves God unexplained making God no explanation at all. Now you have to explain God and explain the explanation and the explanation’s explanation, etc. ad infinitum. In this view; you cannot appeal to God because God is even more unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable, than the thing you sought to explain in the first place namely, the universe, life, etc.
For example, in The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins wrote,
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.
Before offering an answer we ought to consider the question. Is the question valid? Is the arguments valid? Is the premise valid? Is the demand valid? Etc.
The fallacy is demanding “the” explanation in the first place: “the” referring to one, to one and only, to one and only single explanation. For example, if I am wearing a blue shirt and someone asks why my shirt is blue—to explain why my shirt is blue, what is the explanation as to why my shirt is blue—there is no such thing as a single answer. Context may determine which sort of answer they seek yet the explanations, generically, are manifold.
For instance: my shirt is blue due to the properties of light. It is blue due to the cloth having been dyed in a certain mixture of pigments. Blue due to market forces whereby it was determined by the manufacturer that people were purchasing this style of shirt in blue more than in other colors. Due to the fact that it is the one I pulled out of my closet this morning. And on it goes. There is no one, single, only explanation.
That this is the case is not only obvious to those outside of Richard Dawkins’ choir, outside of the box, outside of the cult of personality; this has been pointed out a myriad of times in a myriad of ways. Examples ranging from archeology to alien artifacts come to mind.
If you find what appear to be primitive tools you can logically conclude that they were designed and manufactured by intelligent personages—by living and capable beings. You would not have to give up this hypothesis or be ridiculed for it if you were asked to explain the personages and were unable because they are simply unknown to us, etc. Indeed, you would not have to abandon your hypothesis in favor of a hypothesis that explained the tools by appealing to the natural weathering of rocks or what have you.
If you travel to the dark side of the Moon and find a marquee stating, “Earthlings go home!” You may rightly conclude the work of aliens. However, if, upon being challenged to explain the aliens, you found yourself at a loss, you would not have appeal to weathering, etc.
If an explanation is to be rejected unless there is an explanation for/of the explanation then this would set up an infinite regress of unexplained/unexplainable pseudo-explanation and the endeavors of science would come to a screeching halt or would not get going in the first place.
Now, if the explanation fallacy is so clearly fallacious why is it so popular? Because it is useful. It plays an important part in polemics as it allows one to hold on to a beloved belief no matter how fallacious it is shown to be. You see; its appeal is not logical or scientific but emotional.
No matter what the explanation is, it can be said to not have reached the status of being the explanation—it will be said to not satisfy due to this and that. Meanwhile, what would be considered the explanation remains aloof, undefined or will turn out to be some bit of atheist theology, “If God was then God would…and would not…should…and should not…” etc. all based on the individual atheists personally preferred, personally authored theology.
Let us consider one example of God as explanation: God as explanation for how life came about.
Some say that “God created life” is no explanation at all. It most certainly is an explanation. But how can it be? After ally; it is not an explanation about how God created life. Indeed, and that is the very point; there are different sorts of explanations. Perhaps it would be useful to think of the questions of “Why?” and “How?” Why is there life? Because God created it. How did God create life? We do not know—but scientists are working on it. “Why?” is quite well answered by appealing to the philosophic argument from contingency; that the seemingly infinite regress of one form of life coming from another previously existing form of life is, in reality, a finite regress which logically ends (or, begins) with a being in which life was intrinsic.
“How?” is a different category of question and explanation and is asking for step by step cause and effect sorts of answers.
Thus, saying something such as, “God did it” is an explanation but does not satisfy every possible way of explaining. Likewise, appealing to the time of the gaps, the matter of the gaps, the chance of the gaps, the it just is, of the gaps is also inadequate.
Therefore, the Explanation Fallacy is popular because it is emotionally useful yet, it is illogical and unscientific.
————————-
For more on related issues see:
