Changes

<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Isaac Newton: ''Principia''<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=62 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=In the famous language of Newton's first rule of reasoning in the ''Principia'', ... }}</ref> </div>

<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Isaac Newton: ''Principia''<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=62 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=In the famous language of Newton's first rule of reasoning in the ''Principia'', ... }}</ref> </div>

|}

|}

'''Occam's razor''' or '''Ockham's razor''' is a principle that can loosely be described as ''the explanation that introduces the fewest new assumptions is the one that is most likely to be correct''. It is also called a methodological tool reflecting the imperative ''don't invent unnecessary entities to explain something.''<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book

'''Occam's razor''' (sometimes '''Ockham's razor''') is a principle that, in short, can be described as ''the hypothesis that makes the least assumptions is the best answer for the phenomenon in question''. Note that Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better. It is also called a methodological tool reflecting the imperative ''don't invent unnecessary entities to explain something.''<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book

|author=David Berlinski

|author=David Berlinski

|title=The Deniable Darwin

|title=The Deniable Darwin

|quote=[actual quote from] Morton Rosof: ...It is true that science has its own phiposophical or faith-like underpinnings. They consist of methodological tools like Occam's Razor (don't invent unnecessary entities to explain something), falsification (can a hypothesis, in principle, be falsified?), and balance (extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence). These devices have served science with great success for 300 years.}}</ref>   

|quote=[actual quote from] Morton Rosof: ...It is true that science has its own phiposophical or faith-like underpinnings. They consist of methodological tools like Occam's Razor (don't invent unnecessary entities to explain something), falsification (can a hypothesis, in principle, be falsified?), and balance (extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence). These devices have served science with great success for 300 years.}}</ref>   

Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle]]s in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], [[science]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan [[Friar]] who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.  Briefly, it can be stated as follows:

Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used logical razors in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], [[science]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Occam]], an English Franciscan [[Friar]] who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.  Briefly, it can be stated as follows:

:"From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, [[null hypothesis|until we have reason to believe otherwise]]"

:"From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, [[null hypothesis|until we have reason to believe otherwise]]"

Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by [[atheist]]s to argue against the existence of God.<ref>The Skeptic's Dictionary</ref>

Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by [[atheist]]s to argue against the existence of God.<ref>The Skeptic's Dictionary</ref>

Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. One possibility for intelligent life is naturalistic [[evolution]] via [[natural selection]]. A second possibility is that God used evolution as His means of creation. Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary additional assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the earlier explanation is the most reasonable to believe.

Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. One possibility for intelligent life is naturalistic [[evolution]] via [[natural selection]]. A second possibility is that God used intelligent design as His means of creation. Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea of intelligent design entailsi unnecessary additional assumptions. The ''simpler'' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of intelligent life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the earlier explanation is the most reasonable to believe.

It is, however, important to note that Ockham himself did not accept this reasoning; indeed, he considered the existence of God and the authority of Scripture to be truths which trumped the principle.  While Occam's Razor is frequently articulated as "The simplest explanation is to be preferred," what he actually said was "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." <ref>http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediZhen.htm</ref>

It is, however, important to note that Occam himself did not accept this reasoning; indeed, he considered the existence of God and the authority of Scripture to be truths which trumped the principle.  While Occam's Razor is frequently (and wrongly) articulated as "The simplest explanation is to be preferred," what he actually said was "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." <ref>http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediZhen.htm</ref>

== Use by Christians ==

== Use by Christians ==

The problem with the [[atheist]] example above is that it assumes that naturalistic evolution ''can'' explain the origin of intelligent life.  Most theists would argue that God is not an unnecessary additional assumption, but a ''necessary'' additional assumption.  Creationists would further argue that ''evolution'' is an unnecessary additional assumption&mdash;If you assume that God could create life, there is no need to assume that He needed to use evolution to do so.

The problem with the [[atheist]] example above is that it assumes that naturalistic evolution ''can'' explain the origin of intelligent life.  Most theists would argue that God is not an unnecessary additional assumption, but a ''necessary'' additional assumption.  Creationists would further argue that ''evolution'' is an unnecessary additional assumption &mdash; if you assume that God could create life, there is no need to assume that He needed to use evolution to do so.

Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] also has used Occam's razor to argue against [[polytheism]]. He argues that the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against [[atheism]], and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god.<ref>Strobel, 2004</ref>

Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] also has used Occam's razor to argue against [[polytheism]]. He argues that the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against [[atheism]], and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god.<ref>Strobel, 2004</ref>