Misused and Abused: Ockham's Razor

Over the past decade or so more and more contemporary theologians and apologists have attempted to co-opt Ockham's Razor. Even though it is true that William Ockham was himself a theologian, the principle that carries his name is now being used in ways that pervert and undermine his important contribution to critical thinking. Many of these contemporary theists do not seem to grasp the basic premise of Ockham's Razor. Quite a few seem to have the impression that it amounts to the "simplest" explanation being the correct one. They then misapply even this false characterization.

It should be noted the the razor only comes into play when there are two or more potentially valid explanations or hypotheses. In other words, each idea or explanation should be supported before they can be seen as competing with each other. Once that is established the razor is meant to help weed out the lesser of the possible explanations. The principle is that the explanation that contains the fewest assumptions (unproven or unprovable elements) is more likely to be the correct one. It is not, in the end, about being the simplest. It has far more to do with being careful not to introduce unnecessary and unprovable components into an argument/explanation. Many fail to adhere to the various caveats contained within Ockham's Razor. They tend to start with a single explanation in mind not a set of potential ones and then dismiss that the razor is about what is likely to be correct not a definitive conclusion.

One of the most irritating misapplications that keeps cropping up is the notion that the God concept is supported by the razor as an explanation for existence. I will admit up front that I am simplifying this argument to some degree but the basics are accurate to what has been claimed by many apologists and theologians. It has been insisted that scientists have made more assumption about how the universe or existence (these are not actually the same thing but they don't seem to get that either) came to be. By their way of thinking that automatically means that since God's intervention is the simpler explanation then it must be correct. It is interesting to observe, by their own low standards they have essentially proven them selves wrong. If you "assume"* that the universe can self create it would be the explanation with the fewer assumptions. God would have to self-create then actively create the universe. That means an extra step. How would that qualify as fewer assumptions? I also don't see why it can be assumed by them that God can self-create but not even concede the possibility that the universe could do so.


*This does not really qualify as an assumption since a wide variety of observations, experiments, mathematical models, etc. demonstrate that it is quite possible for the universe to self-create