Having just moved to Patheos, it gives me a great opportunity to revisit some older posts which can now get more traction. There is no point reinventing the wheel, and I have over 1200 posts to draw on. Anyway, here is one on Ockham’s Razor and Christianity.
Here is a definition of Ockham’s Razor:
Ockam’s Razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.
This can often be a very useful principle in comparing competing theories which seek to explain the same phenomena. I will like to apply this theory to everything we know and see whether Christianity or atheistic naturalism is a more attractive explanatory model.Let us look at issues which are a problem for Christianity. Christianity has a job in explaining:
1) logically and coherently the triune Godmanspirit of Christianity so it makes good sense.
2) all the pain and suffering in the world
3) the contradictions in the bible
4) how there are 42,000 denominations of Christianity
5) how faith is an accident of birth, geographically and socially
6) away evolution
7) why Ezekiel was made to eat dung by an all-loving God
8) why the same God had a bet with Satan over the suffering of job
9) why prayer, in being tested, has come up negative, if anything
12) how free will and no suffering exist in heaven but not on earth
13) why 42 children were mauled on behest of an all-loving God for merely calling someone ‘baldhead’
14) why the two infancy narratives for the birth of Jesus contradict each other and have no historical pedigree
15) what happened to all the people who existed before the bible
16) the soul
17) why the soul and eternal judgement are so important to Christianity and yet barely feature in the OT
18) whether parts of the bible are symbolic or literal
19) how one tells whether a claim is historical or literal
20) how we are expected to believe so fully in Jesus and yet have far less evidence than the apostles who themselves struggled to believe first hand (doubting Thomas, etc)
21) how God could kill, directly or indirectly, all those people in the OT
22) how Noah’s flood could have happened against all known science
23) how 8 people could look after the world’s biggest zoo
24) how much of the bible seems to have been gleaned off pre-existing narratives from the cultures around
25) how God can cause the universe and time, since causality requires time
26) how, since God is perfect in every possible way, this must be the best possible world since he chose to actualise this one
27) why all animals don’t photosynthesise, thus not requiring the death of other animals to merely survive
28) how the Gospels can be accurate and report so much important speech and yet none of the authors were eyewitnesses or knew Jesus
29) how God could knowingly allow the Bible to be used to countenance slavery for 2000 years
30) how God can sit back and allow the earth to be overpopulated and ravaged by environmental issues
So on and so forth. Now I wrote 501 of these for my book The Little Book of Unholy Questions. ALL of those questions needed answering in some way. Now, I’m not so interested in whether there are answers per se. The fact is, the difficult QUESTIONS EXIST. These all NEED answering in some way for Christianity to be coherent.
And yet, with the shit-happens model of the atheistic universe, and its idea that the Bible is made up, means that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these questions dissolves into nothing. Sheer irrelevancy.
Now, if we superimpose Ockham’s Razor onto this situation, the naturalistic model isn’t just the winner. It is the winner by a country mile. By a universal light year.
Really, what better, more elegantly, more simplistically and above all, more plausibly explains all these phenomena, explains this here universe?
Due to there being some argument over the usage of Ockham’s Razor, let me be a little clearer.
As Sagan says, here is a definition (lifted from the link):
Ockam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
Of course, the problem here is what defines equally well. The fact that one has to develop ad hoc (since they are not derived from direct evidence) explanations from logical possibilities and contrivances is problematic.
Here are some of the unnecessary entities posited as explanatory mechanisms by Christianity:
- God (with three layers needing explaining:
- The Father
- The Son
- The Holy Spirit)
- the Soul
- The Bible as historical explanation given contradictions with other historical sources
- Supernaturalism, as a mechanism, and explaining how it interacts with natural kinds (interactionism)