|Back to Index|
Religion and Science
Tom Moore re-affirms his position: "I see no reason to believe in a God. According to Occam's Razor, one should adopt the simplest and smallest number of entities to explain anything. Since science has explained how we developed (evolution) and where the universe came from (the Big Bang), there are only a few things that we still don't fully understand. The latest theory has a universe of more than three dimensions that has always existed and that produces a series of big bangs followed by an expansion followed by another big bang. In any case the best that one could believe in would be a God of the Gaps in our knowledge. Presumably one would have to believe that God always existed or explain his (hers) existence. According to Occam, I have to believe in fewer entities, the Universe only, if I don't believe in God.
Moreover if God is to be believed as active in the world, and there is a total lack of evidence that he (She?) acts on the world or its inhabitants, one has the problem of evil. Why do infants suffer and die? "
My response: William of Occam protests. He was a devout Franciscan For information about him, see: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm. There is an immense literature on him. He turns over in his grave at the idea that his philosophy would be used to justify atheism. In fact, simple explanations are not always satisfactory, as Ron Bracewell's criticism of Galileo showed. "There are only a few things that we still don't fully understand". That was the happy self-confidence of the 18th-century philosophes who put a statue of the God of Reason in Notre Dame. In fact, the more we examine the world, the more complicated it becomes. As for the existence of evil, the ancient attempt to "justify the ways of God to man" has baffled the best minds. I envy those who understand the world. I don't, and I humbly admit it.
Ronald Hilton - 6/13/02