Did Isaac Asimov “Tell me why”?

There is a song titled “Tell me why” which consists of the following lyrics:

Tell me why the stars do shine
Tell me why the ivy twines
Tell me why the sky's so blue

And then I'll tell you just why I love you

Because God made the stars to shine
Because God made the ivy twine
Because God made the sky's so blue
Because God made you, that's why I love you

Tell me why the stars do shine
Tell me why the ivy twines

Because God made the sky's so blue
Because God made you, that's why I love you

The atheist, Isaac Asimov, responded thusly:

Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine,
Tropisms make the ivy twine,
Raleigh scattering make skies so blue,
Testicular hormones are why I love you.

Leave it to an atheist to turn love into, or misinterpret love as, the result of testicular hormones. Can you imagine that Saint Valentine’s Day card?

I have considered the bi-chemical reactions of my testicular hormones and have concluded that I love you—will you be my Valentine?

Consider similar sentiments expressed Richard Dawkins who reduced love to a “manifestation of brain stuff” and Michael Ruse who noted, “If all future relationships could be done purely on a cost-benefit analysis, then we would probably be better off without morality. Why fall on a grenade to save your fellows when it hardly pays off for you?”

This represents the deleterious byproduct of turning Darwinism, which is supposed to be a theory about biology, into a worldview.

This is the committing of The Explanation Fallacy. You see, Isaac Asimov did not tell us “why,” he told us “how.” His version is not “Tell Me Why” but “Tell Me How.” The explanation fallacy demand that there is only one explanation and that thus, any alternatives are automatically fallacious. There are many levels of explanations within various contexts.

For example, if the question is “How did life come about?”

“God did it” is, indeed, an answer. And that is the point, it is “an” answer, a sort of answer, a type of answer, a form of an answer. But is it? After all, it does not describe “how” God did it. Indeed, that is also the point, the answer to “How did God create life” requires another sort, type, form of answer.

To some, stating “Life came about when lightning struck a pond [or, enter your preferred abiogenesis—life from non life “answer” here]” is an answer even though it is a Victorian Era Darwinian tall tale.

Isaac Asimov did, in no way, respond to “why” but only to certain explanations as to “how.”

Keeping these issue in mind go a long way towards helping us not commit category mistakes. We commit them by thinking that we are dealing with, responding to, an issue whilst, in reality, offering an answer, explanation or counterargument to another category of issue.

One last example to elucidate this:

An atheist claims that science only explores the material realm.

The atheist claims that according to Judeo-Christian theology God is immaterial.

The atheist concludes that God does not exist because there is no scientific evidence for God.

So, one category is the material realm and the other is the immaterial realm. They are appealing to a tool (science) which was designed to function within one realm, one category and then are fallaciously applying it to another realm wherein it does not function.

This is a good example as to why before answer a question we should think about exactly the question is in the first place.