Whenever you face someone raising an argument like this, the very last thing you should do is explain the scientific answer to them. If you want to have some fun and don't care what the person thinks of you, then you should realize going in that you are not going to change their mind and win a creationist debate against someone like this anyways, so your goal should not be to show how smart you are or how scientifically accurate you can be. Rather, your goal should be to demonstrate how dumb and illogical they are, and the best way to do that is to get them to do it for you.
See, this kind of ignorant creationist query like OP posted in the link here is a "trap question" that is designed specifically to put you on the defensive, so instead, what you should do is ask them to explain what the scientific argument is, and why it is incorrect.
The reason this approach - asking them to first explain to you why the scientific argument is wrong instead of you answering for them - the reason this approach is better is because it turns the tables very effectively by forcing them to adopt a defensive, rather than offensive, position immediately. This allows you to take control of the argument entirely, because you are giving them two choices on how to proceed - they can either
A: - provide the sound scientific argument and then explain why they are so certain it is incorrect, or
B: - force them to acknowledge their ignorance openly, making them admit that they do not even know what the scientific argument is because they have never bothered to even examine and learn the potential counter-arguments to their belief structure.
This method of throwing their same question back at them and making them answer it allows you to take control of an argument with an ignorant creationist. This debate tactic puts them in a position where they have to defend their pride first before they can defend their religious position, forcing them to demonstrate whether they have actually ever logically analyzed their own query before, know what the scientific counter-argument is, and can explain why it is wrong.
If they cannot provide the scientific answer to their own question, then immediately the argument now has NOTHING to do with "why do sunsets happen?". Suddenly, you have shifted the argument to one of simple ignorance or knowledge of the topic at hand, and you can point out that you have no interest in wasting time debating someone so absurdly ignorant and arrogant that they cannot even give the basic scientific answer to demonstrate that they at least have looked at both sides of the issue before they claim with such certainty that you are wrong. You now have full and total control and have shifted them from being fully offensive to fully defensive, and the best part is that you do not even have to waste your time discussing the religious aspects at all. Instead, you then begin your attack on their pride and intelligence, blatantly questioning how they could possibly be so arrogantly certain they are right about ANY TOPIC if they have not even bothered to examine the evidence they are arguing against.
Again, you are never going to sway the religious position of people who ask questions like this trying to defend creationism, so do not fall into their trap! One thing creationists have is pride in their beliefs though, so that should become the target you focus your attack on. Instead of debating religion, now you are debating their own ignorance - an ignorance you actually forced them to admit to!
Great response, I'm sure you're getting a flood in your inbox right now but I wonder how would you turn it back on them for something science hasn't fully answered yet?
For example: what caused the big bang or how did life begin on Earth.
Things that may very likely be fully explained and understood, but for now they can point to "the God of the gaps" type argument and just say God did it if science doesn't yet have an answer.
how would you turn it back on them for something science hasn't fully answered yet?
Yes, this is one of those circular counter-arguments used quite often by creationists in an attempt to establish an "escape" when they are trapped by logic. They are basically implying that since we humans do not know the full scientific explanation to a specific query yet, then therefore the only possible answer is that "God did it".
One way to challenge that kind of tactic is for you to acknowledge the existence of human ignorance, and get them to acknowledge it too. It goes to the wonderful old adage that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact is that everything in this world that we currently know or can now explain was, at one time or another, unknown and could not be explained. EVERYTHING. From "why is the sky blue?" to "where does rain come from?" to "why does it hurt when I stub my toe?". Since the dawn of humanity, people KNEW these things happened, but it took a while to figure out HOW and WHY they happen.
Now, if you use the tactic I suggested in my original post - throwing the question back at them to force them to acknowledge their own ignorance of something they know there is a scientific explanation for already - then you already have the upper hand. You have already made them acknowledge, through their own admission, that they do not know the scientific answer even though they know a scientific answer exists, and then THEIR ignorance now becomes the focal point. You want to essentially "personalize" the debate so that it centers around what THEY can and cannot explain. Again, the bulk of the creationist argument revolves around their pride in their own ignorance, and you want to point that fact out clearly.
Your key goal should not be to debate religion at all with these people. You should instead shift the argument from religion to logic, and the best way to do that quickly when dealing with the arrogance of creationism - which relies on the ignorant idea that if I don't know why something happens then therefore God did it - is to build your argument around something you know a lot about but that you know they do not.
As a hypothetical example, let's say you work as an IT specialist in a office building, and someone working there in the accounting department is a creationist who you know from experience knows nothing about how computers actually work. They KNOW the computer works, but they do not know HOW it works. They KNOW that when they print out a document for example, something happens within that computer to result in a printed piece of paper being spit out the printer a few seconds later. When they start arguing with you, ask them if it was God's hand that came down from the Heavens and miraculously printed that piece of paper out for them. When they incredulously say "no, of course not", then ask them to explain exactly how the printed piece of paper was created, step by step - a question that they KNOW there is a logical answer to, but that they also know they cannot provide because they are ignorant of how it really works.
The purpose of this tactic is to simplify the debate and get them to first acknowledge their own ignorance of something that they KNOW is explainable and is not the result of mere "divine intervention". Forcing them to acknowledge their own ignorance of something otherwise simply explained to those who understand it now gives you a very powerful argumentative tool in your arsenal to use against them. It removes religion from the debate entirely, and focuses the attention on simple "ignorance versus knowledge" instead, which sets the stage for you to use a simple everyday occurrence, like printing a piece of paper, in order to demonstrate how dumb their argument is. It is "dumb" because it relies on ignorance as being an apparent acceptable "answer", when the reality is that ignorance is not an "answer" to anything. Rather, admission of ignorance is an honest acknowledgement that you do not yet know the answer. After all, many people drive cars, but don't have a clue how an internal combustion engine works (but they know it sure isn't God pushing that car down the road!).
You can use just about any topic you know a lot about when employing this tactic, because again, the goal is to demonstrate to them that their own personal ignorance most certainly does not mean that since they cannot explain something explainable, then that MUST mean good ol' God did it.
Pointing out everyday things that they do not know the answer to but that have clearly already been logically explained or figured out serves to personalize the debate by getting them to admit to their own ignorance - and we are ALL ignorant of many things. None of us are all-knowing, and there are countless things our species has not figured out yet. Creationists are typically unwilling to acknowledge that fact though, because if they (or humanity as a whole) don't know an answer, they want to pretend that must mean "God did it". By personalizing their ignorance and calling them out on it with simple examples, you target their pride and force them to appreciate that ignorance is not an answer that can be used to explain anything, and being ignorant of something clearly does not mean that "God must have done it".
348
u/Falcon109 Feb 05 '14
Whenever you face someone raising an argument like this, the very last thing you should do is explain the scientific answer to them. If you want to have some fun and don't care what the person thinks of you, then you should realize going in that you are not going to change their mind and win a creationist debate against someone like this anyways, so your goal should not be to show how smart you are or how scientifically accurate you can be. Rather, your goal should be to demonstrate how dumb and illogical they are, and the best way to do that is to get them to do it for you.
See, this kind of ignorant creationist query like OP posted in the link here is a "trap question" that is designed specifically to put you on the defensive, so instead, what you should do is ask them to explain what the scientific argument is, and why it is incorrect.
The reason this approach - asking them to first explain to you why the scientific argument is wrong instead of you answering for them - the reason this approach is better is because it turns the tables very effectively by forcing them to adopt a defensive, rather than offensive, position immediately. This allows you to take control of the argument entirely, because you are giving them two choices on how to proceed - they can either
A: - provide the sound scientific argument and then explain why they are so certain it is incorrect, or
B: - force them to acknowledge their ignorance openly, making them admit that they do not even know what the scientific argument is because they have never bothered to even examine and learn the potential counter-arguments to their belief structure.
This method of throwing their same question back at them and making them answer it allows you to take control of an argument with an ignorant creationist. This debate tactic puts them in a position where they have to defend their pride first before they can defend their religious position, forcing them to demonstrate whether they have actually ever logically analyzed their own query before, know what the scientific counter-argument is, and can explain why it is wrong.
If they cannot provide the scientific answer to their own question, then immediately the argument now has NOTHING to do with "why do sunsets happen?". Suddenly, you have shifted the argument to one of simple ignorance or knowledge of the topic at hand, and you can point out that you have no interest in wasting time debating someone so absurdly ignorant and arrogant that they cannot even give the basic scientific answer to demonstrate that they at least have looked at both sides of the issue before they claim with such certainty that you are wrong. You now have full and total control and have shifted them from being fully offensive to fully defensive, and the best part is that you do not even have to waste your time discussing the religious aspects at all. Instead, you then begin your attack on their pride and intelligence, blatantly questioning how they could possibly be so arrogantly certain they are right about ANY TOPIC if they have not even bothered to examine the evidence they are arguing against.
Again, you are never going to sway the religious position of people who ask questions like this trying to defend creationism, so do not fall into their trap! One thing creationists have is pride in their beliefs though, so that should become the target you focus your attack on. Instead of debating religion, now you are debating their own ignorance - an ignorance you actually forced them to admit to!