The medieval philosopher and theologian William of Ockham is probably most known for what has been called "Ockham's razor." While I would like to know if Ockham was beardless, I am more interested in his philosophical razor. By applying the razor one is able to shave away unnecessary parts of an explanation and thus arrive at the truth by a more direct route. Ockham said: Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate or "Do not posit plurality without necessity." In other words, don’t multiply assumptions or entities you don’t need to explain something. The Razor also suggests that if two arguments seem equal in all other respects, the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.
In presenting this to my Humanities class I looked for some illustrations but to no avail. Finally I came up with two of my own and covet any feedback you might have.
Which is the faster route to your destination, the interstate or a more direct path along secondary roads? If you look at a map you might conclude the shorter route but then you realize that the speed limit is 35 mph but the interstate is 65 mph. You decide that the shorter distance is still preferable, but then you realize that you have to assume hitting every green light, no trains, & no pedestrians in the crosswalks. You begin to realize that you must assume too many contingencies and go with the interstate as the fastest route.
Atheists argue that a naturalistic explanation of the universe makes God the “unnecessary hypothesis.” God the creator is an assumption that we do not need in the light of naturalism. Theists argue that a purely naturalistic explanation of the universe requires more assumptions such as life evolving from non-living matter and that matter is eternal though the physical universe did not exist prior to the big bang. Irreducible complexity, from the Intelligent Design movement, is essentially an application of Ockham’s razor. It argues that organisms have complex systems that can work only when fully formed. It is simpler to explain this phenomenon by appealing to special creation. Otherwise, you have to posit natural selection of non-usable parts in light of a more complex whole that will appear in the distant future.
Do you think Ockham shaves like this?
6 comments:
Dr. Heckel,
I'm not sure if Ockham had a beard either, but I'd be very interested. Maybe a 40-hour project? =]
Anyhow, I'd say that here you have an explanation of Ockham's razor that is clear, but the second of your "two" explanations isn't really an explanation, but an application. Although this is really mincing words =]
Anyhow, yes, I do think this is how he would have shaved had he known of the existence of interstates.
Well first off, any artists renderings of Ockham I can find show him as a clean shaven man. But basically all the pictures show only one side of his face. Maybe to demonstrate the effectiveness of his razor, he shaved one side of his face while keeping a beard on the other. Just a thought...
Anyway, I think Ockham's razor is basically an editor. One of the big keys to being a good writer is being a good editor. Being a good editor, in my opinion, is pretty much comprised of being able to execute two jobs accurately: (1) Removing unnecessary, off-topic, or superfluous material; (2) organizing thoughts and topics for the best flow and ease of understanding.
I think his point is this: simpler is better (or, simpler is sometimes better). When you play a guitar and then put an echo effect on the sound, the line you are playing will started to echo. Essentially the processor just takes what you are playing and echoes it. Of course the more often you have it set to echo the sound, the more confusing the output sounds. Even the simplest guitar riff can come back as an incomprehensible wave of noise. Ockham is saying is that the desired argument is that basic guitar line. It is the other stuff - the effects and production - that make the guitar line hard to understand.
As far as atheist arguments go... hmm. I think sometimes the atheists have to pull a 'Reverse Ockham's Razor." They must make there explanation more complicated or it can't work. The Atheist/Evolutionist community must continually expand the amount of time that the universe was formed in. The atheist/evolutionist has to continually come up with ways to explain why we can't observe evolution today, why the fossil records don't work, why the missing links have never been found, and why they actually know that there was such a thing as the big bang.
So by virtue of there position they must make there argument complicated. Then they almost argue that because they are scientists, they wouldn't be doing science unless it was complex. Beats me, but Ockham's Razor does support the Biblical account of the beginning of the world: God spoke it into existence. That's mighty simple!
Dr. Heckel,
I recall a conversation some years past wherein you rebutted several arguments in favor of paedobaptism with an "Ockhamish" reply about the simplicity of the credobaptist position as a possible apologetic for its correctness. Something to the end that the paedobaptist position requires too much explanation and qualifying, whereas the credobaptist position is rather straightforward and, well, simple.
Perhaps that would serve as an example?
Hey T Man! It seems the razor could cut both ways on this one.
Credobaptists (i.e. those who hold to believer's only baptism) might say that all we know for sure is that the apostles baptized those who outwardly expressed faith, whatever age they might have been.
Paedobaptists (those who believe in infant baptism as well) might say that you have to assume discontinuity between the Old Covenant, which included infants with the sign of circumcision, and the New Covenant.
This continuity makes the credobaptist argument more problematic and thus more complex. The credobaptist has at least to address the common assumption that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old and has better promises, but doesn't include infant children.
Paedobaptist position rests on what I call the 3 "Ps": Old Testament PRECEDENT (circumcision), New Testament PRESUPPOSITION (believe and you and your household will be saved), and early church PRACTICE.
"Otherwise, you have to posit natural selection of non-usable parts in light of a more complex whole that will appear in the distant future."
Forgive my presumption at taking this quote, but I had to mention something: According to Evolutionary theory, any trait that an animal acquired that was not immediately useful or advantageous would then be seen as a hindrance.
Thus, this trait would be abolished.
It is exceedingly illogical, in my view, that evolutionists propose that creatures gain advantageous traits "over time," for, if that were true, it would invalidate a basic principle of evolutionary mechanics: A trait survives within multiple groups only if it is shown to give some being(s) a higher rate of survival than an other being(s). Any trait that does the opposite (a non-usable part) would be discarded, rather than added upon in an attempt to make it better.
It's quite funny, I think.
After my long babbling session, I would like to add that I really liked the (article? column?) It's interesting to note that, in most forums I've seen it mentioned, Ockham's Razor is quoted to be merely "the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true." I suppose this works, but...it seems to take something away from the argument. Rather than stating to avoid unnecessary complexity when FORMING explanations, it simply tells you to agree with the simplest one. IE: God is a rock, rather than: God is a Trinity of three persons, forming one substance with each member equally God. That's a danger when simply taking the "simplest explanation" part from the entire whole. The arguments also have to be moderately similar, no? What do you think?
I think I agree with "mercedes" in that the second explanation was more of an application; yet, I found it to be quite useful in this particular instance:
I've heard atheists say, "If you assume the existence of an eternal God, you must then explain how he existed, and achieve an understanding of how he could exist out of time. This is infinitely more complex than Naturalization"
Is it not incredibly, even irreducibly, complex to assume that, at some point in time (or pre-time) a point in pre-existence space containing all matter that exists today and will ever exist, suddenly began (impossibly) expanding? Or that two "string membranes" collided and produced this expansion? (what the heck happened to these membranes anyway?)Then that, supposedly, the random dust and such expelled from this expansion began to coalesce, eventually adhering to one another in order to form planets and stars?
That entropy was reversed for this?
I should think so.
I also agree that Ockham does, in fact, shave like this.
PS: I know this isn't relevant, but could you tell me the full price of the England-Scotland trip? I tried to figure it out simply by looking at the link to the "trip agenda" but it wasn't very clear. Is the full trip included in the $2,949 or does one need to add to that for Scotland? thanks lots (eloquent...I know) ;)
See you Monday!
Good comments Luxis!
By "non-usable" I meant that it was not usable until joined with the fully-formed, complex system. It doesn't work by itself and apart from the whole.
Evidently the Bombardier Beetle has a complex system for repelling predators. It hits them with a chemical explosion that would blow up the beetle w/out a propulsion mechanism that makes it go off in the direction of the predator.
I agree with you that if the laws of the universe applied to the beginning of the universe that entropy would make the coalescing universe wind down over time. That is, unless God imposed and programmed order and things like DNA into the physical universe. This order and growth had to be programmed because intelligence is not native to matter. Some say this applies only to inorganic matter (like rocks), but I don't see why this shouldn't apply to organic matter as well (like cabbage). Even the naturalistic scientist admits that all matter was inorganic at the beginning of the universe. Good point!
This brings up the biggest problem of all for the atheist: How did matter become organic in the first place? How can life evolve from non-living matter without creation ex-nihilo? This points to an all-powerful God as Paul insisted in Romans 1.
With respect to the atheist's objection that you have to come up with an explanation for the existence for an all-powerful God, respondeo: Something must be eternal on the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit (out of nothing, comes nothing). If there ever was a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist now. It doesn't seem that physical matter can be eternal, because it seems to be running down into disorder and scientists must appeal to ignorance or miracle to explain how some of it came to life! Thus the order and organics of the universe point to an intelligent designer on par w/ the God of the Bible.
Now, you cannot ask: Who created God?, b/c by definition he is eternal or without a beginning in time and thus uncreated. I've heard Dawkins say: "Well that's a convenient way out of an argument." Well, I say it's better than making a category mistake!
Post a Comment