Changes

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 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.

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 entails 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 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>

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. Logical arguments for the existence of God, such as ontological and cosmological arguments, intended to justify the conclusion that the existence of a God is necessary for the existence of the universe. For example, [[Thomas Aquinas]], heavily influenced by the earlier works of [[Aristotle]], attempted to use [[a posteriori]] reasoning to logically prove that a God must exist, in order for the universe to exist. <ref>http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm</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>

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>