Simple Argument and God, P1
This article will address the use of Occam's Razor in arguments relating to God.
I have dealt <a href="http://www.afterecon.com/philosophy-religion-and-apologetics/occams-razor-youre-doing-it-wrong/">strongly and formally with Occam's Razor long ago, but in this article I would like to address the informal formulation of Occam's Razor.
The informal version of Occam's Razor is the same as the so-called "KISS Principle," which stands for, "Keep it Simple, Stupid!"
The informal formulation of Occam's Razor is a simple rule of thumb for preference, but not a real logical tool, as the more formal version can sometimes be. The informal OR says that if two arguments are equal in explanatory power and so on, preference should be given to the simpler one.
In the first place, any intellectual will realize that this is a load of crap. If two fundamentally different explanations carry the same explanatory power they should be expected as equally likely stories; neither should be preferred! Unfortunately for the intellectual, this anti-intellectual razor carries a kind of economic and practical weight. People do prefer simpler, easier, more comprehensible, less shocking, less threatening, less offensive and less worldview-altering explanations.
In a rare point of agreement with the materialist, I do think people can often be described in two ways similar to a material system; people often take the path of least resistance, and they often continue in their own trajectory until moved upon. This appliesboth for the physical movements of people and also to their minds; mental inertia, mental states, worldviews, belief systems or whatever other label you would like.
Even though the razor makes an unjustified, and in fact strictly untrue, moral claim, it does describe an important practical consideration. Coming full circle, the irony is that practical considerations are also moral ones, at least in many cases. In short, the simpler explanation should not be preferred because it is somehow more likely to be true. It should not even be preferred at all, but it will often be preferred by virtue of human nature.
Occam's Razor is the perfect example of a relatively true statement. Not in the sense that it can be true for me and false for you, but in the sense that it has a moral truth which is contingent upon the state of another consideration. A simpler explanation should be preferred if it can transmit an optimal amount of good.
Consider the following situation:
- Some person wishes to convince others that A is true, but he must make an indirect argument.
- An argument may
In many cases, accuracy and simplicity conflict. This is the problem of complexity, and it must be considered when we form a communication to appeal to some audience, but I think that in theory there is always some ideal balance of accuracy and comprehensibility, even if we cannot always locate it in practice.