|
Crazy
|
Here's a bit from a book called "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law.
Quote:
... But suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was no more evidence for God's existence than there was against. What would it then be rational to believe?
Many would say: you should then be agnostic. The rational thing to do would be to suspend judgement.
But this is a mistake. In fact, the burden of proof lies with the theist. In the absence of good evidence either way, the rational position to adopt is atheism. Why is this?
William of Ockham (1285-1349) points out that, where you are presented with two hypotheses that are otherwise equally well supported by available evidence, you should always pick the simpler hypothesis. This principle, know as Ockham's razor, is very sensible. Take, for example, these two hypotheses:
A: There are invisible, intangible, immaterial fairies at the bottom of the garden, in addition to the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on
B: There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, just the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on.
Everything I have observed fits both hypotheses equally well. After all, if the fairies at the bottom of my garden are invisible, intangible and immaterial, then I shouldn't expect to observe any evidence of their presence, should I?
Does the fact that the available evidence fits both hypotheses equally well mean that I should suspend judgement on whether or not there are fairies at the bottome of the garden?
Of course not. The rational thing to believe is that there are no fairies. For that's the simpler hypothesis. Why introduct unnecessary fairies?
Similarly, if the available evidence were equally to fit bothe atheism and theism, then atheism would be the rational position to adopt. For the atheistic hypothesis is simpler: it sticks with the natural world we see around us, and dispenses with the additional, supernatural being.
|
Of course, many would claim that the evidence points to one side or the other, but that's not the point.
__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."
Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602
|