Is 'No Explanation' Good Explanation? (agnostic, God, Zen)

[Willamena]

I've heard it said oftentimes on the forum that "there is no other explanation, so it must be god (or whatever)." And that got me to thinking: what is wrong with "no explanation"?

Must everything have an explanation?

Is "no explanation" enough to satisfy you?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I"there is no other explanation, so it must be god (or whatever)."

The secret obscured by the way we use language is that in that sentence "god" means the same thing as "no explanation."

[FatMan]

There's always an explanation. We may not always know what the "real" one is, but there is always one there.

Personally, I prefer the made-up explanation to avoid appearing unknowing about something

[Wandered Off]

One downside I can see is it might stop us from trying to learn. It's good to believe we have a chance of finding out so we keep trying, even if we come up with some half-baked theories in the process.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

One downside I can see is it might stop us from trying to learn. It's good to believe we have a chance of finding out so we keep trying, even if we come up with some half-baked theories in the process.

Good point. I understand "no explanation" to be simply shorthand for "no explanation of which we (or I) am aware." Certainly, an explanation may be assembled with further inquiry, so giving up and saying "no explanation" isn't satisfactory.

When someone settles on "god" as a symbol for "no explanation" is that a sort of giving up?

[YmirGF]

Me? I'd rather hear people say, "No explanation" or "I don't know" rather than "Goddidit!" I don't know, but it has always struck me as being dishonest. For example, no one can prove the existence of "god" so how can you ascribe, randomly, anything to such an entity? Is it intellectual dishonesty or is it me?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Good point. I understand "no explanation" to be simply shorthand for "no explanation of which we (or I) am aware." Certainly, an explanation may be assembled with further inquiry, so giving up and saying "no explanation" isn't satisfactory.

When someone settles on "god" as a symbol for "no explanation" is that a sort of giving up?

In the case of god, at least for the agnostic in me, it's a case of there never will be explanation. But what of things you know or can assume with certainty will not be resolved in your life-time? Surely there are dozens of things that will have "no explanation."

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Surely there are dozens of things that will have "no explanation."

That's probably true. That's why I said "may." Surely everything we give up trying to examine, and label "god did it," will always have "no explanation."

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

That's probably true. That's why I said "may." Surely everything we give up trying to examine, and label "god did it," will always have "no explanation."

Certainly. But other things, too, will never be resolved in one life-time. If "no explanation" cannot be satisfactory, that is a formula for life-long discontent.