Occam’s Razor and the Beard of the Philosopher

This is the too-long did not read version of a previous column. I write in in hopes that the many people who have misunderstood my point will understand if earnestly asked.

In the following argument, no claim is being made that inexplicable things are explicable. No claim is being made that the atheist model is wrong. The single claim being made is that the atheist model is inelegant, that is, it is a model that is less parsimonious and less robust than the Christian model.

I said it at least four times in a prior column article, but the concept that a lawyer is only arguing the one point he says he is arguing is confusing to many, so I will repeat it:

I am asking the reader to compare the two models of the universe. I make no arguments as to which is true. I am only talking about (1) what they claim and (2) whether the model requires ad hoc after-the-fact rationalizations to save the appearances. I called these ad hoc ‘epicycles.’

The atheist model either claims that the origin of the universe is a mystery beyond human power to know, or claims it is beyond present human knowledge, or claims that various speculations (spontaneous creation, multiverse, or endless cycles) are the most satisfactory speculations currently available.

The Christian model claims the origin of the universe is known because the originator made it known. The model neatly avoids the logical fallacy of an infinite regression of causes, and the unscientific claims about reverse-entropy, the paradox of multiple universes, or causes arising spontaneously.

And likewise for various other claims about the origin and nature of morality, the origin and nature of aesthetics, of free will, and for historical claims of the causes of the triumph of the Christian Church and of Western Civilization. The atheist explanation of why Christians act as they do does not fit in with the atheist model of human nature, motivation, and behavior, or says it is beyond knowing.

More to the point, the atheist accounts of this historical Jesus, and the theory to explain the claims of people like me to have met Him, people with no record of hallucination or dishonesty, and nothing to gain and much to lose by making the claim, makes such claims, are almost comically inadequate.

Whereas the Christian explanation of why atheists are the way they are are accurate and true to life: man’s pride and love of sin blinds him to the obvious. (Note the astronomical number of murders wherever atheist regimes gain absolute power in a nation). Meeting a humble atheist is a rare experience, and one who is chaste is twice as rare.

Models are judged both on their accuracy and on their ability to cleave to the principle of parsimony, which is, not to multiply entities unduly to explain the phenomenon.

Where the atheist model says it cannot know is held to be beyond human knowledge, it makes an honorable claim. “No one can know the origins of the universe (assuming it has an origin) aside from clues that origin has left behind.” So far, so good.

The problem is that if the geocentric model says it cannot know, for example, the relationship between gravity and planetary motion, but the Newtonian model says it can know, the Newtonian model (if it is predicts the results more accurately) is to be preferred. It is more robust.

Likewise, here.