Something Rather Than Nothing

Periodically, theists drag out this foolish old notion that since there is something rather than nothing God must exist. From start to finish this is nonsensical crap. Yes, we exist. I certainly am willing to concede that existence in and of itself is very important and quite impressive. Of course, if we didn't exist I would not be writing let alone thinking or attempting to convey my thoughts. The mere fact that we exist along with everything else in the universe does little to tell us about the nature of existence or its origin. It also by itself does not tell us what the purpose of existence or whether there even is a purpose for existence.

There were two recent pieces I came across that serve well as examples of the kind of pathetic thinking theists try to drag out of the fact of existence. Daniel Harrell in his short "Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" only seems to manage to mangle Ockham's Razor and point out the pointlessness of his own writing. He also seems to rely almost entirely on past examples. He feebly tries to use what he sees as the simplicity of ancient philosophy as proof that simplicity is not necessarily desirable. Like so many others he confuses the importance of limiting the number of assumptions in a scientific approach to being simple. Most of his writing clearly demonstrates, despite claims to the contrary, that he has not even attempted to approach the question with anything resembling objectivity. He KNOWs at the start what the answer to his question is and simply seeks to make excuses for it. Why bother? If proof and reasoning are of no consequence then there is no point thinking about the question at all.

Mehdi Hasan's "God is the best answer to: 'Why is there something rather than nothing'?"* makes a few of the same points and with equal amounts of ignorance and foolishness. He also harps on past philosophers without ever acknowledging that the level and reliability of information available today far outstrips what was available then. It is in no way a statement (positive or negative) of their intelligence. Mehdi also uses all manner of logical fallacies to try to demonstrate that his predetermined position is correct. What I find the most mind-numbing about his entire approach is that he really believes that simply saying God did it has any explanatory value at all. It doesn't. to me it as incomprehensible as stating that the sky is blue because it is not green or red. A "supreme being" that cannot be quantified in any way created everything. Really? How to get to that conclusion based on the available information? And then why and how did this Being do it? It not only doesn't offer any substantial answers it doesn't even allow for a framework from which you can pursue any.

*Unfortunately I could not find a freely available online version of this piece. It appears in the December 21 (2012)-January 3, 2013 edition of New Statesman.

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