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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.