Does Occam’s Razor Provide a Decent Means of Supporting Theism?


                I am self-taught in many aspects of philosophy, or I rely on what I have learned by reading other’s work. One philosophical tool that I have found very interesting was Occam’s Razor. For those who aren’t familiar, Occam’s Razor basically states that the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. So, does this tool provide a case for Theism/Christianity? It all depends on what we have as evidence to support our conclusion and what we decide to be the simplest explanation. What I want to do today is to show that God is the simplest explanation for the universe, and that the resurrection of Jesus is the simplest explanation as to why the disciples died for their beliefs and that the early church exploded because of that truth.
                As far as God being the uncaused first cause of the universe, the creator and sustainer of all we are and know, and the simplest explanation of all of this, I have a small case of evidence to present. It is more reasonable to propose a single beginning to the universe, rather than proposing that the universe is eternal in spite of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe cycles between big bangs and big crunches per Carl Sagan, or the multiverse. The last two have no evidence for it, and per Occam’s Razor, these are less likely than the first two, and our best evidence discredits the second explanation, leaving the first explanation as the most likely: that the universe was due to an uncaused first cause that Christian attribute to God.
                To explain why the disciples started espousing the resurrection, plenty of people have proposed different hypotheses as to why they did, rather than they actually saw the resurrected Christ. There are plenty of people who will claim that Jesus never existed at all, and that the disciples made him up in an effort to gain power. There are also those who have alternative explanations to the resurrection, maybe the disciples mistook someone for Jesus, maybe Jesus didn’t die on the cross, just fainted, maybe the disciples experienced a mass hallucination.
Let us take a look at each one of these objections and see if they are likely alternatives to what we claim the truth is: that the disciples saw a bodily resurrected Jesus of Nazareth and spent the rest of their lives being persecuted, tortured, and killed because they believed Jesus to be the risen Messiah. Let’s work backward in our objections, as with the objections to God being the Creator of the universe. If the disciples were experiencing a mass hallucination, it is highly unlikely that they experienced the same hallucination, as Lee Strobel found in his investigation for his book “The Case for Christ”. As for Jesus not dying on the cross, there is no historical record, except for the Quran (written 600 years later), that claims that Jesus did not die on the cross. Even if he didn’t, he was so beaten and bloodied that I doubt a Jesus in that state would inspire the faith that the disciples spread and died for. For the disciples mistaking someone for Jesus, I find this highly unlikely, as they were close by him for the better part of approximately 3 years, so I think it’s quite an assumption to make that the disciples wouldn’t know what Jesus looked like. As for the ever so popular Zeitgeist “Christ-myth”, there is so much academic dishonesty or willful ignorance on the part of historical investigation into the gods that people claim Jesus to be derivative of, that this can be dismissed. The youtube channel InspiringPhilosophy has done a wonderful series dismantling each one of these Christ-myth claims.
So have we answered the question if Occam’s Razor can help theistic arguments? I would certainly hope that this quick review of this philosophical tool provides a short answer of yes to that. Let me know if there are any other cases where you have used Occam’s Razor to determine if there were a simpler explanation to the events presented in scripture. God bless and have a good rest of your day!
References:
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FR08QtvapM&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVOYpPpjYhTUHXycJrY6P2I 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First post in 2 years, catching up on life, reflections on fatherhood

          To those of you who are still following me and came back to see this post, thank you for stopping in. It has been 2 years since I last posted anything to this page (little over actually since my animal suffering post was July 10, 2021). I fell off writing because my wife and I were going through one of our biggest challenges we have faced, the supposed impending death and miscarriage of our second child, Austin. I say supposed because God is good and Austin survived long odds to not only make it to term, but he is a happy almost 2 year old now. Our daughter Abby is also doing great, almost 4 now, and she loves her brother fiercely. This particular post won’t necessarily be focusing on an apologetics topic (I hope to tackle the origin and uses of different Bible translations soon), I want to do use this post to tell that story of Austin’s miraculous turn around in the womb, and reflect on what all God has shown me and grown me in during almost 4 years of being a father. I to
Read more

Evidence to Support Creation/Intelligent Design

                During my post concerning education, I made comments over how evolution can be taught in a classroom without affecting the worldview of the students. Thanks to the comment from someone on the article, I got to thinking about the opposite side, creationism/intelligent design. How could one introduce these theories and ideas without imposing a worldview on your students? Now unfortunately I cannot think of a way to introduce these views without introducing some sort of God, but they can be introduced by using the Deistic God, who is an impersonal being that started the universe and then left everything alone within this creation.   A deistic god does not push a specific worldview per say, but it does point toward a supernatural being that cannot be scientifically proven in the classical sense, so some people may already be throwing up their hands and claim multiple problems with teaching these ideas in school. The two big objections that pop into my head are by usi
Read more

Thoughts on the Problem of Animal Suffering

              YouTube atheist Cosmic Skeptic uploaded a video entitled “Christianity’s Biggest Problem”. He definitely caught my attention for the title and because I recently gained some respect for Alex as he had a recent discussion with William Lane Craig and that discussion turned out very well. To spoil Alex’s cryptic surprise, he believes that Christianity’s biggest problem is the problem of animal suffering. In Alex’s view, he believes that because animals experience gratuitous suffering (resource depletion, death in wildfires, long drawn out deaths to predators) that it is evidence that God does not exist, and that Christianity is false. I admit that I hadn’t really considered this problem, so I have gone looking for resources, and I would like to present what I have found here as possible avenues in which we can answer this particular problem. The first line of response I am borrowing Sean Luke, a comember of CAA: Christian Apologetics Alliance on Facebook, who left this com
Read more