Friday, February 18, 2022

Peter Baumgarten (LDS) on Occam's Razor

  

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.