I don't think it does.
William of Ockham recommended that we not needlessly multiply metaphysical entities. Some take this to mean that we should minimize
the quantity of metaphysical entities, accepting only those absolutely required by the evidence of our senses.
Of course, nothing much survives that degree of skepticism: not just God, but the external physical world, the past, other minds,
and much else fails to pass muster on those grounds.
I think it's more plausible, as a principle and as an understanding of Ockham, to see him as saying what he said: we
shouldn't -needlessly multiply- metaphysical entities, the implication being that we start with some initially, and we shouldn't
multiply them haphazardly, especially in ad hoc ways (e.g.: here's an unexplained illness X -- must be a new X-type demon causing
it!). But it's not like Ockham was saying we shouldn't believe in other minds, the external world, or God, until we
have -independent proof- or something!
I think it's pretty clear, personally and as anthropological and psychological principles, that belief in God is a very widespread
thing. It's certainly defeatable (e.g., if one sees the problem of evil as proving there is no God, or if one were raised in the
USSR or China with atheistic indoctrination, or if one accepted scientism, or many strains of post-modernism, or orthodox Marxism),
but it seems, as a general principle anyway, to be a very natural belief.
I think it's fair to take it as one of our starting points. This does NOT mean it's incorrigible (i.e., immune to refutation or
discussion); but it does suggest it has strong intuitive justification that does not (seems to me anyway) exist with belief in the
great pumpkin, the tooth fairy, or other atheological analogs to God.
So that's why I understand how people can take Ockham's razor as supporting atheism (or the presumption of atheism), and that's why
I reject that line of thinking.
Was I so elaborate as to confuse the point? :^>
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Chitwood [mailto:chitw@flash.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 12:00 PM
To: John E. Rylander; Pim van Meurs; 'Gary Collins';
evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Putting evolution to work on the assembly line
I'm curious. Why do you think Occam's Razor supports atheism?
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: John E. Rylander <rylander@prolexia.com>
> To: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>; 'Gary Collins'
<etlgycs@etl.ericsson.se>; evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: Putting evolution to work on the assembly line
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 11:25 AM
>
> Pim,
>
> No intelligence was required initially? How would you get -that- out of
> this article?
>
> If instead your point is meant only as speculative natural atheology,
that's
> conceivable, but seems more like a (counter-intuitive) presumption than
any
> evidentially-based assertion. (I was fascinated to find that even E. O.
> Wilson, Mr. Sociobiology himself, considers himself a deist.)
>
> If I were independently convinced of the truth of atheism (say, by the
> problem of evil; or because I thought Ockham's razor required me to be an
> atheist unless I had -proof- to the contrary), of course, then I'd
probably
> argue the same thing. But since I'm not....
>
> --John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:entheta@eskimo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 10:41 PM
> To: 'Gary Collins'; evolution@calvin.edu; rylander@prolexia.com
> Subject: RE: Putting evolution to work on the assembly line
>
>
> Gary Collins:
> The article states that 'No intelligence made the designs. They just
> evolved.'
> This is true to a point, of course; but surely it is the intelligence of
> those who designed the software and the hardware (ie the workstations
> on which the software was run) which makes the whole thing possible. This
is
> a factor which is sometimes overlooked.>>
>
> So perhaps intelligence is required initially but then it can freely
evolve
> ?
>
> Or perhaps no intelligence was even required initially and it freely
evolved
> ?
>
>
>