Sure enough, further evidence confirms that the driver had indeed been drinking. Based on preliminary evidence relating to the scene and the condition of one of the drivers, the police propose two possible explanations: a) that the driver of one of the cars went through a red light and b) that this same driver had been drinking. A road traffic accident has taken place near a set of traffic lights. That cannot be ruled out until the car starts, but it would be really unlucky based on the evidence so far and the application of Ockham’s razor, one explanation is sufficient. Of course, it is possible that there is a problem with both the battery and the starter motor. Or to put it another way, the truth of the faulty battery hypothesis has explained away the faulty starter motor hypothesis. Ockham’s razor removes the need for the further explanation. Since this would explain why the car didn’t start, there is no longer any reason to think that there is a problem with the starter motor. You call a mechanic who quickly determines that there is indeed a problem with the battery. Two possible explanations are a) that the battery is faulty and b) that the starter motor is faulty. First, consider a scenario where Ockham’s razor works. If Ockham’s razor is used properly it can be a very helpful tool, but if used incorrectly it can become a dangerous instrument. Padgett, p.196, 2012).īut some caution is needed. In this role it is now completely superseded by science.” In claiming that science explains God away, Dawkins focuses in particular on “Darwin’s destruction of the argument from design.” Outside the New Atheism, cosmologist Sean Carroll sums up the view clearly, “Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world … Two thousand years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to invoke God as an explanation for natural phenomena now, we can do much better.” ( The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, eds J.B. The late Christopher Hitchens appealed explicitly to Ockham’s razor as part of his case against God and the same idea is found in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006) where he claims that “Historically, religion aspired to explain our own existence and the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves. This kind of reasoning is central to the New Atheism. There is no need for two explanations when one will do. William of Ockham was a medieval philosopher and theologian, and his famous ‘razor’ is the idea that “It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer.” Applied to science and God, the implication seems to be that if science can explain the world around us on its own, there is no need for science and God. Sometimes this is expressed in terms of Ockham’s razor. The suggestion is that as science explains more and more about the world there is less and less need for God. The idea that science has explained God away is very popular. SUBSCRIBE NOW Articles Science, Ockham’s Razor & God David Glass and Mark McCartney say Ockham’s razor doesn’t cut it with God.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |