Ever since me and Rust used this concept in a debate several months ago every mini-atheist on this forum has been using it out of context.
So here I'm going to take some time to explain this concept more in depth, and point out some ways in which it can be used.
Occam's Razor was invented by a Franciscan monk, William of Ockham some time during the 14th century.
The basic principle is that when explaning something as little assumptions should be made as possible, this can also sometimes be taken to mean the simplest explanation is usually the truth.
The main problem with this is that it is actually not scientific fact, it is just scientific methodology, which may mean that in several centuries when scientific method has improved it may be rendered obsolete.
Not everything in the universe is simple, not all of our explanations are correct, and sometimes assumptions have to be made.
This being said; for now the concept is a logical thing to follow.
The main use in theological debate is creation of life and the universe. If you adhere to the theory of the Big Bang creating the universe and are an atheist (like me), then already you have to make a few assumptions;
1. That there was nothing in existence.
2. That the fact that nothing existed meant that the laws of the universe as we understand them did not exist.
3. That because there was no law governing what could and couldn't happen, a random event occured, a singularity appeared.
4. The singularity contained all matter within the universe as we know it.
5. The singularity expanded to the size that our universe now is.
If you are a theist and believe that God created the universe via the Big Bang (a more rational kind of theist) Then you also make a few assumptions.
1. God exists outside our universe.
2. God wanted to create a universe very slowly.
3. God created a singularity.
4. The singularity contained all matter within the universe as we know it.
5. The singularity expanded to the size that our universe now is.
As you can see the strong atheist in his belief is making just as many assumptions as the rational theist. This means that we are not actually entitled to say that our belief is any more founded than a Christian.
More disturbing however is the other use of the principle, the dark side of theology; fundamentalism.
Assumption number 1:
All current scientific knowledge is wrong.
2. God exists.
3. God made the scientists look like they were right.
4. God created the universe.
Uh oh, it seems that those weirdos have a more simple explanation than everyone else. Does that make them right? Of course not, the history of the universe suggests otherwise, but unfortunately Occam's Razor still backs their ridiculous worldview.
For this reason I don't think that Occam's Razor is a very valid peice of evidence to use in a debate as depending on the beliefs of a person it can be twisted to fit any argument.
[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 12-29-2006).]
|
Threaded Mode
