DIALOG WITH AN ATHEIST: PART 3

[[At this point in our correspondence I responded to three main points that he brought up.]

Occam's Razor [a principle stated by the Christian monk William of Occam which says that the simplest explanation is usually the best one]

Occam's Razor is of course a very useful tool in scientific endeavors, but it is no more than that. I am glad to see that you recognized it as a postulate that is assumed (i.e., that one believes in), but can never be proven in a logical way. In this, it is similar to a theological belief system. However, even in the realm of science, the use of OR can be misleading on occasion. For example, in studying rates and equilibria of chemical reactions in liquids, the data (within experimental error) can almost always be fitted to specific rate equations and equilibrium constants using only temperature and chemical concentrations as variables (utilizing OR to eliminate unnecessary variables). But over-reliance on this principle causes one to leave out other variables that might affect certain reactions (such as the effect of extreme pressures on certain chemical processes in the liquid or solid state). One could almost say, as you did of theism, that it causes one to be satisfied with one's presumed ability to comprehend a situation and stifles any desire to look more deeply.

Getting back to theological implications of OR and taking a somewhat extreme example:

If I am studying the rates of ester saponification, I might start with the hypothesis that there is a battle going on between a demon of esterification and an angel in charge of saponification. As I investigate the data, I notice that the reaction rates are very uniform in regard to certain physical variables. I might then modify my hypothesis to say that the angel and demon operate very consistently in regard to concentrations in the solution in question and become more active as the temperature increases. Occam's Razor then kicks in, prompting me to dispense with the angel altogether, and then later with the demon. It is a convenience, and nothing is lost in terms of my ability to proceed with the equations I have developed. However, I have not at all logically disproved the existence of the angel or the demon. They might still be there for all I know, and might arbitrarily disrupt the next experiment I carry out (that would certainly explain some of the puzzling results all of us scientists have observed on occasion).

Actually, there is a strong view among many science historians that development and use of the scientific method was a direct result of the widespread belief in a monotheistic deity (whether in the Arabic or Western world). The reason is that as long as one believes in multiple gods, demons, etc. in place of one consistent God over all, there is no reason to expect, and therefore search for, uniformity in any physical processes. I realize that it is easy to say at this point that monotheism was merely a step in the right direction until we could dispense with God altogether as we became more intellectually sophisticated. But as one example of a highly logical and rational thinker, you cited Newton, who happens to have been such a dedicated Christian scholar that it is said that he spent much more time studying and writing on the Book of Revelation than he did on any scientific endeavor. The examples of practicing Christian scientists (no capital “S”) today whom I know personally or have read about are legion, including (as a recent example) the present head of the Human Genome Project. To merely dismiss this phenomenon as stupidity, mass hysteria, a product of early brainwashing, wishful thinking, or split personality disorder, etc. is being naïvely reductionist.

Getting back to Occam's Razor, you said that the way to evaluate it is to see how often you win the bet. I assume that you mean that the more phenomenon you can explain and theories you can generate that can be used in a predictive manner, the more sure you can be that OR is the way to go. The same would apply to the other unproved and unprovable assumptions behind all scientific research, i.e. the existence of nothing beyond the physical world to interact with it, the hypothesis that all matter and energy obey certain set laws, and belief in man's ability using his reason and the scientific method of investigation to discover those laws. As a research scientist I am a practical atheist and start out with those assumptions. However, that is light-years away from saying that success in science and engineering disproves the existence of the supernatural in any way, or even makes it unlikely. To say that would be extremely close-minded and prejudiced. It is interesting that Christians are branded with those very words although, paradoxically, they have a broader view of the world than atheists. Christians are free philosophically to accept all the findings of science wholeheartedly.

To get back to the important point you made above concerning the utilitarianism of OR (and similar assumptions) and how that strengthens your faith in it: In this respect, I see a close parallel to religious faith. Most people have never heard of OR, etc. and know little or nothing about how successful these working assumptions have been when applied to explanations of the world around us. I would even go as far as to say that I have a greater appreciation than you do since I have spent my whole working career in the area of research and have experienced it firsthand over and over.

Now apply the same situation to the matter of religious faith instead. For those outside, they have little or no appreciation of the massive body of insightful writing, research results and breakthroughs in terms of transformed lives that have been the result of taking a few basic postulates and seeing what the logical implications are in areas of world not entirely governed by the hard sciences. To truly appreciate these, one must unfortunately make the same leap of faith that scientists do, even if it is in the form of a provisional assumption of deism, and then proceed to test it out in specific situations. And to carry out the parallel a little further, remember that scientists never throw up their hands when their pet hypothesis fails and say, “I guess there is no rhyme or reason to the universe.” Instead they revise their theories until they reach one that seems to explain the most phenomena because they have a deep faith that there is consistency in the universe. The same applies of any investigations in the area of religious inquiries.

Randi and Hume

Randi [a well known atheist and debunker of “magic” phenomena] was actually utilizing David Hume, who had a couple of pertinent remarks to make about the subject in question. I'll summarize them with possible rebuttals below, relying on quotes found in Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith. It is a book of apologetics which is better than some I have read in that he interviews different experts in various fields in each chapter rather than trying to come up with his own summary. Regarding Hume's views, Strobel interviewed Dr. William Craig, who holds doctorates in philosophy from University of Birmingham in England and in theology from University of Munich.

Strobel has also written The Case for Christ and The Case for a Creator. I happened to mention to [a mutual friend from high school] that we were corresponding by e-mail on various subjects, and he volunteered that he had an extra copy of The Case for Christ that he would be glad to send you, if you wish (Yes, he's another evangelical Christian. We're everywhere!). My own feeling is that it would be helpful to you only if and when you come to the point where you would seriously consider theistic claims. However, feel free to ask him for the book (or I will relay the request) at any time. He just needs your current mailing address.

In the first place, Hume defined miracles as violations of the laws of nature. Craig replied that this was an “improper understanding since natural laws have implicit ceteris paribus conditions. In other words, natural laws assume that no other natural or supernatural factors are interfering with the operation that the law describes....If there's a supernatural agent that is working in the natural world, then the idealized conditions described by the law are no longer in effect. The law isn't violated because the law has this implicit provision that nothing is messing around with the conditions.”

Secondly, “Hume said that the evidence for the uniformity of nature is so conclusive that any evidence for miracles would never be able to overcome it.” The resurrection of Jesus was taken as an example. “There is no contradiction between believing that men generally stay dead in their graves and that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. In fact, Christians believe both of these. The opposite of the statement that Jesus rose from the dead is not that all other men remain in their graves; it's that Jesus of Nazareth remained in his grave. In order to argue against the evidence for the Resurrection, you have to present evidence against the Resurrection itself, not evidence that everybody else has always remained in their grave. So I think his argument is simply fallacious.”

“Now I would agree with Hume that a natural resurrection of Jesus from the dead, without any sort of divine intervention, is enormously improbable. But that's not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is God raised Jesus from the dead. That doesn't say anything against the laws of nature, which say dead men don't come back to life naturally.”

Randi's variation on Hume's second point is not to count out the possibility of a miracle out of hand but merely to state that the more improbable the event, the more evidence one should demand. Hume gave an example similar to yours. What if it was reported that the Queen of England died and appeared live a month later? Hume said that he would accept any explanation rather than God having performed a miracle. Craig's reply was that it would indeed be hard to believe since the so-called miracle would lack a religious context (unlike Christ's resurrection) and would be “basically a bald and unexplained anomaly.” C.S. Lewis in Miracles took this same illustration of Hume's and replied a little differently. He said that he would be more likely to believe that story than an account of the Queen walking down Piccadilly Circus in her knickers. The reason being that he knew a lot more about the normal behavior of the Queen than he did about God's behavior and therefore could be more sure of the improbability of the second account than the first.

Basically, to label the virgin birth, Jesus' resurrection, the existence of heaven and hell,. etc. as obviously false beliefs or events having a strictly naturalistic explanation, however bizarre, is simply to restate the belief that, in Carl Sagan's words, “The cosmos is all there was, all there is, and all there will be.” No proof, no logic, just faith. If one, however, makes the more open-minded assumption that it is possible there is something beyond the physical universe, certain events that seemed to be improbable or impossible now become possible or even probable. It all depends on your beginning assumptions. 

Darwin 

Here is the exact quote and source, which I found again on the Internet: Darwin acknowledged that a “First Cause” was a more impressive idea than blind chance, but then wrote, ‘[C]an the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?’ From The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, (with original omissions restored, edited with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow), Collins, London, ‘Religious Belief’, pp. 85–96, 1958.

Darwin gives some additional specious arguments [specious since how can Darwin then state his own conclusions regarding the origin of the species with any certainty] in the above pages, but they are worthwhile reading since they still pop up today. I gave you the Freud reference, but I don't have the exact page. It is pretty much the gist of the whole book.