Argument No. 11: Occam’s
Razor: God Is an Unnecessary Hypothesis
The Truth: Occam’s
Razor Is a Flawed Analytical Device
One of the most cited arguments
against a belief in God or any other intelligent creative force is a rule for
rational testing of the validity of a hypothesis, popularly referred to as
Occam’s razor. This rule is usually attributed to the English Franciscan monk
and philosopher, William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1347). [1] The rule states “Pluralitas
non est ponenda sine necessitate.” Another version of this same idea could
be stated as “the simplest explanation of a phenomenon is usually the correct
one,” or “the simpler the explanation the better.” The idea is sometimes
referred to as the principle of parsimony and sometimes as the principle of
simplicity. [2]
Scientists and logicians use
Occam’s razor to shave off hypotheses that they consider unnecessary for
explaining phenomena, which is a subjective exercise at best. Secularists use
the razor to argue against the existence of God by saying: since the existence
of God is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe or anything in
it. God is an unnecessary hypothesis. With this complacent assurance, the
annoying notion of the existence of a divine being is related to the landfill
of obsolete ideas. According to the secularist, the hypothesis of God is a dead
end, in that it does not explain the origin of the Creator or how the Creator
creates. Since the sanguine secularists already know the origin of the universe
(from the big bang) and how all that exists developed from the big bang (the
anthropic principle, the theory of evolution, etc.), the idea of a God is
unnecessary metaphysical baggage. It adds complexity without necessity or the
furtherance of our understanding of origins—directly violating Occam’s razor.
However, are the explanations of
origins offered by the theory of evolution and the anthropic principle any less
complex? Additionally, are not the secularists guilty of violating the razor
with each step in the ascent to the summit of Dawkins’s Mount Improbable? Are
they not committing an offense against the principle of parsimony with each
step up the anthropic ladder, mounting improbable chance (hypothesis) upon
improbable chance (another hypothesis) ad infinitum? Since Dawkins’s conflation
of both the anthropic principle and natural selection relies on improbability
mounting of an infinite mountain of more improbabilities, the attempt to use
Occam’s razor to reject the hypothesis of God’s existence is, to say the least,
just a tad hypocritical. The irony is too rich to escape comment.
On the other hand, if we accept as
a premise that time, space, and being are truly limitless (which science has
not disproved) and that there has always been a God/Creator, then the
hypothesis of there being a God who created all these wonders takes on a
simplicity that does not violate the razor.
Moreover, acceptance of God as a
hypothesis does not preclude scientific inquiry of how God pulled off each
aspect of creation. Accepting the scriptural affirmation that God created the
heavens and the earth does not bar inquiry into the laws, principles, and
methods God used in achieving this astonishing fear. Contrary to what some secularists
argue a priori, [3] acceptance of the existence of God does not lead to an
inevitable blind ally or dead end to understanding. Indeed, why should it? To
assert that it does is an obvious non sequitur. [4] It also ignores the
previously noted examples of the great men of science who continued their
careers in scientific research and inquiry, notwithstanding their continued
belief in God.
Finally, there may be room for
doubt as to the usefulness of Occam’s razor as an argument for or against God
since it can really cut either way of depending on one’s bias, as demonstrated.
Is there any objective way of deciding which of the two hypotheses is simpler
or more likely valid? The theist cay say that God is necessary to understand
existence and so cut away the anthropic principle, while the secularist will
say the same thing about God. And so it goes.
Therefore, Occam’s razor, as
applied by secularists, is, at best, a very weak argument against the existence
of God. It does little to help their cause. People of faith rarely use it to
help theirs. And help is not needed. The evidence on the side of faith are both
more abundant and much stronger. (J. Peter Baumgarten, The Seeker’s Guide to
Faith: An Exposition of the Doubts, Delusions and Deception of Atheism [Conneaut
Lake, Pa.: Page Publishing, Inc., 2020], 182-84)
Notes for the Above
[1] As a Franciscan, William was a
minimalist by nature. Consistent with his vows, he idealized the simple life of
poverty. He was excommunicated by Pope John XXII (c. 1244-1334) evidentially
for his criticisms of the church’s material excesses and opposition to papal
power.
[2] While not the first to
articulate the principle—Aristotle (384-322 BC) and St. Thomas Aquinas
(1225-1274), both preceded him—William’s frequent advocacy for it has
permanently linked his name to the principle.
[3] The term “a priori” refers to
a method or principle for deriving knowledge solely by deductive reasoning
rather than from experience or observation.
[4] A non sequitur is a statement
or conclusion that does not follow logically from a premise or from a previous
statement or argument.
