This is a continuation of a discussion that addresses a question from one of our internationals.
Q: Proof that God exists?
A: Let’s pretend. Let’s say, you and your roommate wake up in the middle of the night throwing up in the toilet. Let’s also say that you both ate some under-cooked pork at a dinner party earlier that day. You conclude that you both have food poisoning. Is that a fair conclusion?
Now, let’s say a friend stops by in the morning, and you tell him your woes. But he disagrees with your assessment. He says you don’t both have food poisoning. He says that you have contracted a bacterial infection from not washing your hands properly and that your roommate is exhibiting an allergic reaction to the sage, which was in the pork. Let’s say that you don’t recall washing your hands before eating last night, and — it’s true — there was sage in the pork.
We now have competing theories for why you and your roommate are sick. Both theories are plausible and both accurately fit the known facts. Whose theory do you favor and why?
Most people will say that, given what we know, the food poisoning theory is the better theory. The reason is not that the other theory can’t work. It’s just that the food poisoning theory is simpler. It explains the same phenomena that your friend’s theory explains without as many contingencies. All other things being equal, we prefer simple explanations over complex ones. This idea is not a piece of evidence per se. Instead it is a principle for evaluating theories, and this principle has a name — Ockham’s Razor.
William of Ockham was a medieval priest and philosopher who often spoke of the necessity of economy in a theory. His principle is this: “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words, when we have competing theories, we should select the one with fewer assumptions, unless we have reason to select a different one. Most people do this naturally. We call it common sense.
I am bringing up Ockham’s Razor in a discussion about the existence of God because atheists generally do. People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have used Ockham’s Razor as a principle to favor atheism. Their argument goes something like this.
- Science can explain life through purely material explanations.
- Christians do not generally deny science (except perhaps for evolution). Instead they posit a God behind the science. For example, science offers explanations for how rain works or how galaxies formed. Christians, however, believe that God brings the rain and that God formed the galaxies, but in believing this, they frequently accept much of the science. In other words, the Christian theory suggests an extra step or an assumption that we don’t need to explain these phenomena.
- Therefore, using Ockham’s Razor, we should prefer the atheist explanation of life.
If you read atheist arguments long enough, sooner or later you will hear some form of Ockham’s Razor.
So then. How can we address this line of thinking?
A. First, we need to see Ockham’s Razor for what it is. It is not evidence but a principle for evaluating evidence. Consequently, it doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. It may be that you didn’t wash your hands, and your roommate is allergic to sage. Sometimes life is complex.
B. Ockham’s Razor says that we should not posit entities without necessity. Ockham understood that simple isn’t always best. When you suggest an extra entity, you should have a reason for it.
C. Christians would strongly disagree with #1 above, that science can explain life through purely material explanations. We do not believe that materialistic science can adequately provide a foundation for moral absolutes, purpose, human value, reason, the beginning of the universe, design, beauty, this inward sense of something beyond us, and more. We see atheistic explanations as utterly inadequate. Therefore, when we posit God to explain these things, we are not doing so without necessity. Atheism just doesn’t work.
D. Life seems to be more than just biology. To reduce it to biology seems rather narrow-minded. When we include things like moral absolutes, purpose, etc. in our description of life, all of a sudden, God seems to best fit Ockham’s Razor.
Let’s think this through.
Let’s take moral absolutes. Moral absolutes either exist or they don’t. If they don’t, then slavery is not wrong, Stalin was not wrong, and the person who cheated you out of a thousand dollars was not wrong. There is no wrong. If moral absolutes do exist, then they need a moral foundation. Materialism cannot give us a moral foundation. Thus, to be consistent, an atheist has one of two choices: he can say moral absolutes do not exist, or he can say that moral absolutes do exist and that they just are. Why is it right to be kind? It helps the species survive. Why is it right to help the species survive? It just is. If you ask long enough, you get to “It just is.” Some things are right because — well — they just are. Fair enough.
Let’s take human value. What makes humans more valuable then parrots? Well, we are more intelligent or have a sense of beauty or whatever. And what makes intelligence more valuable than a lack of intelligence? Well, intelligence allows creatures to accomplish more sophisticated things. And why is it more valuable to accomplish more sophisticated things? At some point, you end up with “It just is.”
Let’s take the beginning of the universe. If there is no God, then where did the universe come from? Some may say that the universe just is. Others posit some other cause, maybe a multiverse. And where did that cause come from? At some point you end up with “It just is.”
Let’s take purpose. Life has a purpose beyond mere survival or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then the atheist should be consistent and stop criticizing people who say it does. If life has no purpose, then neither does their criticism. If life has no purpose, then the atheist and the Christian are equally floating in the sea of meaninglessness. If, however, life does have a purpose, where did it come from? At some point, you end up with “It just is.”
We could continue this game, but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, the Christian has one thing that just is. God explains all these phenomena by Himself. The materialist, however, must have multiple realities that just are. Unless, of course, he wishes to deny those realities altogether. Kindness is just right or kindness doesn’t exist. We have no purpose or our purpose is whatever they say, and at some point, it just is. Humans have value. They just do. At some point something caused the universe to exist, and it just is.
Now let me ask you a question. Which of these ideas — theism or atheism — best fits Ockham’s Razor?
