Explore the interplay of Ockham's razor and the principle of sufficient reason as they determine the pros and cons of cosmological argument for divine existence.
In order that the principle of sufficient reason not lead to a more-than-sufficient reason, we are told that the search for explanations should be constrained by "Ockham's razor." Ockham's razor is used because it is thought if there is absence from constraint, an explanatory argument could offer superfluous reasons, that is, engage in explanatory overkill.
It is noted that some who offer many reasons why a casual argument aimed at explaining the origin of the world need not lead to an external source at all. They also suggest that there is no reason to suppose that an external sufficient reason is required for every state of affairs, and therefore one not go one step further and suggest that if there are some states where one is required
- For example
- For sure, an ancient church or cathedral is a peaceful and moving place to visit. Religious music can also be very affecting — I love Haydn’s many masses and adore Rossini’s Petite Messe Solennelle — as can be its art. But, as the man said when looking at some vast triptych of the Crucifixion, ‘Great story, shame it ain’t true.’
- Christianity did not arise in a vacuum. The very first Christians debated with their opponents in a cultural context within which everyone knew that there is a God and that he had revealed himself through Moses and the prophets. The question, given that background, was what to think of Jesus of Nazareth. Hence the earliest apologists were, in effect, apologists for Christianity as opposed to Judaism, specifically. That didn’t last long. As Christianity spread beyond Judea into the larger Mediterranean world, the question became whether to accept Christianity as opposed to paganism. Much less could be taken for granted.
- Although most morally sensitive people are agreed that society ought to punish forms of wrongdoing, they are not agreed as to the reason why it should. Natural law theorists, like Aquinas, argue that sin consists in turning away from ones ultimate end or disturbing the natural order and that punishment constitutes a restoration.Retributivists, such as Kant and Anselm, hold the deontological view that wrongdoing and punishment have nothing whatever to with the natural order and, indeed, would have nothing to do with each other were it not for a punisher who is in a position of authority. For Kant punishment ought to follow wrongdoing, but there is nothing in the natural order that demands this.
- For people who are not spiritual dualists, we have to eye matter a bit warily. Matter used to be pretty mundane stuff. It sat around and did more or less nothing until some spirit came along to make it think and move. Then the feeble matter would eventually wear out, and the spirit would move on, to be reincarnated, or find another plane of existence, or do whatever it is that spirits do. We now find that we live in a world where matter itself seems to pull itself upright and think on its own. It really is kind of unnerving sometimes. If you look closely at the mud, sometimes you find it wiggling, because it’s full of other bits of matter which is more or less just mud itself, but has decided for some reason to crawl around and be all movey and squirmy. And the same sort of matter which makes the mud and the creepy crawlies is exactly the same stuff which our brains are made out of, and there are no spirits living in our brain, which means that, somehow, inherent in the very nature of mud and dust and grime, is the ability to feel emotions, have conscious thoughts, and think about stuff.
- Consider the following argument by Alvin Plantinga:
- “The premise is that there is real and objectively horrifying evil in the world. Examples would be certain sorts of appalling evil characteristic of Nazi concentration camps: guards found pleasure in devising tortures, making mothers decide which of their children would go to the gas chambers and which would be spared; small children were hanged, dying (because of their light weight) a slow and agonizing death; victims were taunted with the claim that no one would ever know their fate and how they were treated…Naturalism does not have the resources to accommodate or explain this fact [the existence of objective evil] about these states of affairs. From a naturalistic point of view, about all one can say is that we do hate them; but this is far short of seeing them as intrinsically horrifying. How can we understand this intrinsically horrifying character?…A good answer (and one for which it is hard to think of an alternative) is that this evil consists in defying God, the source of all that is good and just, and the first being of the universe. What is horrifying here is not merely going against God’s will, but consciously choosing to invert the true scale of values…(The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , p. 326).”
- Here's an interesting article from the LA Times. This study found no difference in believers and non-believers in their likelihood for cheating on tests – but found that among those who do believe in God that those who envision God as wrathful and vengeful were less likely to cheat than those who envision God as compassionate.
Some also think that there is no reason to suppose that all of the characteristics of the cause of an event or system of events can accurately be inferred from the characteristics of the event or the system of the events that it causes.
And then there are the external causes of a finite event or system of events, where one can be inferred or reasonably hypothesised at all, and some think that it need not be infinite.
- For example
- The Problem of Evil poses a philosophical threat to the design argument because it implies that the design of the cosmos and the designer of the cosmos are flawed. We can know they are flawed due to the preponderance of evil within the cosmos.
- Is it possible to believe in a loving God who is omnipotent (can do any doable, i. e., non-contradictory thing) in the face of the massive sufferings of human beings and animals? Most theologians and seminary students believe that it is. Most do so with an appeal to mystery sooner or later, since experience and evidence contradict the initial assumptions: divine omnipotence, divine goodness, and the reality of evil and suffering. If contradiction is too strong, then at least it can be said that things happen in this life that raise some awfully difficult questions we don't know how to answer. The frequent response is an appeal to mystery.
Some would want to think, and provide several reasons, why a causal argument aimed at explaining the origin of the world need not lead inexorably to a single source, much less to one that is worthy of worship. Even if the argument showed that there is one "external" or "non-contingent" cause behind the world, to some it is not clear that this adequate cause of the world, as it is, can reasonably be held to deserve adoration and obedience.
An explanation should cover all the data that need explaining. A good explanation shouldn't take the skin with the whiskers, but it shouldn't miss any whiskers, either.
