On the most popular argument for atheism

[Lothar's son]

I've written a post about the misuse of Occam's razor on my blog and would be glad to receive comments and critiques :=)



As you'll probably realize, English isn't my mother tongue ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

Deconstructing the Popular Use of Occam’s Razor

 

 

Occam’s Razor (OR) seems to lie at the very core of the worldviews of naturalism and materialism. It demands only few imagination to realize the pair would completely collapse if the razor was cut off.

 

Also called principle of parsimony, it exists in two forms: a methodological form and an epistemological form.

 

Methodological Razor: if theory A and theory B do the same job of describing all known facts C, it is preferable to use the simplest theory for the next investigations.

 

Epistemological Razor: if theory A and theory B do the same job of describing all known facts C, the simplest theory is ALWAYS more likely.

 

 

Here, I won’t address the validity of the Methodological Razor (MR) which might be an useful tool in many situations.

I am much more interested in evaluating the Epistemological razor (ER), since it is under this form it most always plays an overwhelming role in philosophy, theology and the study of anomalous phenomena.

 

Nowadays, the most popular argument for atheism looks like this:

 

1. It is possible (at least a priori) to explain all facts of the Cosmos as satisfactorily with nature alone as with God

2. ER: if theory A and theory B do the same job of describing all known facts C, the simplest theory is ALWAYS more likely

3. God is much more complex than nature

4. Nature alone is much more likely to be responsible for reality than God

 

Of course, since neither God nor nature can explain their own existence, ER stipulates that the existence of nature as a brute fact is much more probable than the existence of God as a brute fact.

 

ER is employed in a huge variety by proponents with diverse worldviews. This is the main reason why most scientists believe that UFO cannot be something otherworldly.

 

Despite the voluminous literature related to ER, it comes as a surprise that only a few publications deal with its justification. And unlike the expectations of its most enthusiastic proponents, such a demonstration proves a formidable task due to its universal claim to always hold true.

 

In this entry, I’ll show why I’m under the impression that nobody has been able to prove ER without begging the question in one way or the other.

 

 

One common way to argue is by using a reductio ad adsurbum.

Let us consider the following realistic conservation I could have with a UFO denier.

 

Skeptical Manitoo: „I was really shocked as I learned you believe all this non-senses about flying saucers!“

Lothar’s son: „Actually, this isn’t quite true. I do believe most of them can be traced back to natural or human causes. I’m just undecided about a small minority of them. I consider it possible that something otherworldly might be going on…“

Sckeptical Manitoo:„What??? How dare you utter such lunacy before having drunk your third beer? The UFO hypothesis is the most complex one, therefore it is also the most unlikely one!“

Lothar’s son: „And how the hell do you know that, all other things being equal, simpler explanations are always more probable?“

Skeptical Manitoo: „And how do you know otherwise that the traces on the field stem from some wild living things rather than from elves?“ he replied bitterly.

 

At the point, the skeptics expects me to recognize this is silly indeed, AND that the only way to avoid this madness is by believing ER, so that I’ll end up agreeing with him.

But this is only a pragmatic argument, it has no bearing on the truth of ER whatsoever.

 

What if I stay stubborn:

 

Lothar’s son: „I believe your elfic intervention is also within the realm of possibilities, even if it is more complex.“

Skeptical Manitoo: „What? And would you also tolerate the presence of a Flying Spaguetti Monster which has caused the rain shower which fell on us previously?“

Lothar’s son: „„Of course!“

Skeptical Manitoo: „What? And do you also believe in a flying Dick Cheney who threw bombs upon the civilian population in Iraq?“

 

Reaching this level of insanity, I might very well be tempted to nod in order to escape the ordeal.

 

But it is important to realize that this whole discussion only shows, at best, a pragmatic MR to be valid.

If there is no INDEPENDENT ground for rejecting the crazy situations my imaginative friend has mentioned, anti-realism seems to be true, which means we can never have any kind of knowledge.

 

To justify the Epistemological Razor, one clearly needs non-circular arguments which might come from pure philosophical considerations or experimental inferences.

 

 

A very commonly used one is the alleged inexorable progress of science towards the simplest explanations.

There are many problems with this argument. The history of science is full of examples of complex theories who were wrongly dismissed because of their lack of parsimony, tough the future vindicated them in the most triumphant way. Continental drift and the reality of ball lightnings are only two examples on a long list.

But let us suppose for the sake of the argument that during OUR ENTIRE history, the simplest theories always proved to be the most likely.

Would this show that ER, as I’ve defined it above, is true? Not at all.

All this would prove is that we live in an universe (or perhaps even ONLY a region of an universe) where things are as simple as possible.

 

But modern science seems to indicate there exist a gigantic (perhaps even an infinite) number of parallel universes out there. And as Max Tegmark pointed out, these are not only limited to those resulting from chaotic cosmic inflation and string theory, but include as well quantum universes (Everett’s theory) and perhaps even mathematical universes. Simulated universes can certainly be added to this list.

 

So ultimately the justification of Occam’s razor would look like that:

 

1. in our universe, simplest explanations are always the most likely to be true
2. if it is true in our universe, it is also probably true in the other 10000000000000000000000000000000000…… universes we know very little of
3. therefore, in the entire reality, simplest explanations are always the most likely to be true.

 

 

I hope that most of my readers will realize that premise 2) is an extraordinary claim, an interpolation based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

 

I know there have been many elegant attempts to ground ER on bayesian considerations. Like philosopher of mathematics Kelly I believe all are hopelessly circular because they smuggle simplicity into their definition of reality.

 

I’d be glad to learn from my reader if they know ways to justify ER which don’t presuppose the existence of a simple multiverse in the first place.

 

 

Finally, I want to point out a further problem one should have using ER against the existence of

God.

The Kalham’s cosmological argument (named after a great Muslim theologian) tries to establish the existence of a transcendence as follows:

 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause

 

Due to the overwhelming experimental and theoretical success of the Big Bang theory, atheist apologists can no longer deny premise 2)

 

Consequently, they typically deny premise 1), arguing like Jeffrey Low-Dahler that it is not always true.
Low-Dahler agrees it would be absurd to believe something in our universe could pop into existence, and this is the case because all our experience allows us to INDUCTIVELY conclude this is never going to occur. But he also emphasizes that this inference is only valid for things taking place WITHIN our universe, and not outside.
Since the grounds for believing in 1) are limited to our experience in this universe, we’ve no warrant to assert it is generally true.

But this is exactly my point about Occam’s razor or the principle of parsimony.

It might (or not) be true it holds in our universe, but this gives us absolutely no justification for believing it can be applied to transcendental realities (or to rule them out).

 

 

So, this was admittedly a very long post, and I hope to receive lots of positive and negative feedbacks!

[~candice~]

Excellent!

The goal of epistemology should be explanatory power not simplicity.

[Guest]

Occam’s Razor (OR) seems to lie at the very core of the worldviews of naturalism and materialism.....

 

~

 

Sin

 

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)

 

Lies At The Very Core

 

But they will reply, 'It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; we will all follow the stubbornness of our evil hearts.'" Jeremiah 18:12 (NIV)

 

Of The World View Of Naturalism

 

You turn things upside down! Should the potter be thought to be like clay; that the thing made should say about him who made it, "He didn't make me;" or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding?" Isaiah 29:16 (WEB)

 

And Materialism

 

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. 2 John 2:15-17 (NASB)

 

Whereas The LORD Jesus

 

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 (ESV)

 

Lies At The Very Core

 

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. John 5:24 (NIV)

 

Of Truth

 

Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6 (HCSB)

 

And Freedom

 

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. John 8:34-36 (NASB)

[Diatheosis]

Are Christians and theists in the same category in this context? Because one who knows Jesus, knows the Father.

[thomas t]

I am not sure what your criticism of parsimony is? As you said in the beginning parsimony is a way of saying that when two explanations for the same set of facts or phenomena is equal, but one explanation is simpler, then the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. And that is key, it does not say that simpler explanations are always or even usually correct. In order to correctly invoke parsimony the background conditions must first be met. 

 

If you have two explanations, one very simple and one very complex, and the complex explanation fits the data better, parsimony does not apply. I would summarize parsimony as explaining something as fully as possible without being any more complex than necessary, simplifying it, but not so simple that any explanatory power is lost. 

I agree.

[RobbyPants]

I thought the idea behind Occam's Razor was that the approach that makes the fewest assumptions is likely the best one. That being said, Occam's Razor doesn't really "prove" anything, but rather point you in what might be the better direction toward proving something. I'm not sure I would consider this "atheism's strongest argument", though. For that, I could split atheism into two groups: gnostic and agnostic.

 

Gnostic atheism asserts that there are no gods. From what I understand, the assertion that there is a particular god (or gods) is non-falsifiable, as is the assertion that there are no gods. They're both technically faith-based assertions.

 

Agnostic atheism rejects the assumption about gods one way or the other due to a lack of evidence. So, while a person might say "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". the agnostic atheist could counter with "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

From what I've seen, that is the most convincing argument I've seen for atheism.

[Meta_Agape]

I'd agree with you about the Occam's Razor thing Robby. On your other statement of:

"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

"From what I've seen, that is the most convincing argument I've seen for atheism."

I'm afraid I have to vehemently disagree and assert that everything in the entire universe in one way or another is direct evidence of a creator and points back to him: http://shadowsofmessiah.blogspot.com/

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[RobbyPants]

"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

"From what I've seen, that is the most convincing argument I've seen for atheism."

I'm afraid I have to vehemently disagree and assert that everything in the entire universe in one way or another is direct evidence of a creator and points back to him: http://shadowsofmessiah.blogspot.com/

Romans 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

To word that a bit more clearly, I haven't seen any evidence that doesn't require the assumption that God exists in the first place.