What if any conclusion is the wrong conclusion?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the physicist, is everywhere on the telly it seems. He said something interesting---speaking of the big bang, he said the fact that no one knows what happened prior to this event, is used by religious types as evidence for god.

He is quite correct, and such conclusions are not appropriate. Though Tyson is not aware of why. When you say something is a mystery, when you say something is proof of god---- you are using words to cover your own ignorance--you are not using words to help anyone understand freshly. When something is called a mystery, it is filed away, under the aspect of things categorized, it is treated as evidence, and how could that be? By putting a word on something, you can forget what is under the word, and that is just what the alert do not want. 

Here's another approach, for those concerned to recall that to which  Jan Cox pointed. We have all heard  the story of the scholars studying an elephant, and each had one part of the beast, and assessed the whole animal based on just their own part of the elephant body. This story which has an eastern origin, ntends to portray the limitations of knowledge. Consider this, the real, original story ended without naming the animal central to this story, we do not know what animal the scholars were investigating. 

Jan kept changing the maps to keep us from concluding, anything...