Romans 6:23

Occam’s Razor is not “the simplest explanation is probably the best one”, as some would argue, rather it is “plurality is not to be assumed without necessity”, which means fewer assumptions are preferred and redundant theories should be “shaved” away, in order to increase the likelihood of arriving at the truth.

What is often assumed is that Occam’s Razor is a law of logic, rather than a philosophical concept. It cannot be a law of logic since its application does not always lead to factual conclusions. To assume an argument is immediately sound by virtue of it being simple and straightforward is to commit a reductive fallacy. 

Not everything can be simple; therefore, to employ Occam’s Razor in what is actually a complicated concept is to reduce that concept, defining a large idea by only one of its smaller aspects. 

When used as an attempt to disprove the existence of God, for instance, it rather effects the opposite of its intended usage by raising more questions than providing answers. How does arbitrary naturalistic evolution explain the origin of intelligent life and design?

The more naturalistic the world view, the more reductionist it becomes, contending only with the material aspect without any material proof that there isn’t something else besides it, rejecting evidence to the contrary, ascribing randomness to the observable fine-tuning of the universe, its uniquely sophisticated design and discarding transcendental moral truths. It cannot be empirically proven; it can merely explain behavior, not beliefs, refuting itself without even trying to. 

In a reasonable argument, the balance is neither too simple, where you risk reductionism, nor too complex, where there is an excess in the explanation. The sole usage of the Razor, on the other hand, instead of providing balance, removes the need for adequate arguments and negates the need for evidence, whether direct evidence or otherwise.

The Moral Argument, known as well as the Axiological Argument (axia is Greek for “value”) is one of the best out of various deductive arguments for the existence of God. Its common formulation follows the subsequent premises and conclusion:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Before analyzing the premises, let’s first establish what constitutes a good deductive argument. Firstly, a good argument needs to be valid, and for it to be valid, it needs to be logical. That means the conclusion must logically follow the premises. The premises cannot be true and the conclusion false.

Secondly, a good argument must be sound. For it to be sound, it needs to be both valid and true. In other words, the argument must be logical and have true premises. It can of course still be valid if its premises are false, but it cannot be sound. 

Finally, a good argument has premises which are more reasonable than its negations. If the premises are more reasonable than its negations, that infers the high likelihood that the premises are true, thus the reasonableness behind the veracity of the premises is significantly increased, which means the argument is plausibly sound (and good). 

Premise 1: Moral values and duties, being objective, are based on a standard or origin which infers its objectivity. Objective morality cannot originate from culture or society for instance, since there are distinct and contradictory moral values between different cultures. If there are contradictory values, there is no objectivity. Objectivity is, however, true. 

Genetic evolution, also an objection, cannot be considered an explanation behind objective morality for the simple reason that cultures don’t always display the same moral values or denote equal worth to moral values in contrast to one another. If genetic evolution were the correct reasoning, then people from societies which do not often respect transcendent moral laws would be genetically defective. 

This argument is particularly strange because instead of explaining moral objectivity, it allows for relativism. In other words, if you subscribe to this view you can no longer condemn nazis for their actions because you would be prejudiced against their genetic, physical and inherent (lack) of a moral code. And of course that makes no sense. 

Some argue that because groups display what is considered morally good behavior have an advantage in survival, that justifies the origin of moral objectivity on account of humanity testing what is good and bad as it relates to survivability. 

This falls apart once it becomes clear that human “testing” is exactly what it claims to be: testing. It does not explain the origin of moral standards, it explains how humans may have come to understand the existence of moral standards. 

Premise 2: I’ve already addressed some common objections to premise 2 in my post: “A Simple Critique to Relativism”.  Adding to it, premise 2 is true because moral objectivity is observable. It’s observable, as stated in my explanation for premise 1, through the survivability odds of groups that display altruistic behavior, which is higher than those who do not. This already points to the necessity of a standard for which actions that can all be considered altruistic are derived and that lead to a common good.

Another interesting point is the common good itself. Who can explain (without God) the reason why is it good to survive? Is there a moral standard which would objectively point out why people in all cultures generally prefer to survive and thrive instead of dying?

If you would like to dispute the veracity of either one or both premises, you need to provide evidence contrary to each of them. Otherwise, you cannot claim the premises are false.

Conclusion: God exists. He exists because moral truths exist. He exists because nothing else can offer a reasonable explanation for transcendental moral laws. He exists because humanity cannot generate a standard of morality by itself, rather it either endorses what is evidently morally true or creates subjective values that attempt to downplay it or mascarade it, but do not and cannot eradicate such truths.

Many people believe there are many paths to God. People also believe that ‘reduced sodium’ equals ‘low sodium’ or that the earth is flat or that Moses brought two of each animal to the ark.

What happens when one of the supposed paths to God contradicts the other? Either only one path is true or the two are false, but they can’t both be true.

(John 14:6)  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

This seems pretty exclusive to me, which is why the ‘anything goes’ mentality, better known as relativism, is a problem: It’s self-refuting. Religious relativism, for instance, is not something that truly exists. It’s clear that not all religions are the same or lead to the same destination, considering the example given above, which concerns the core of a belief that completely negates every concept that stands in opposition to it.

Christianity isn't exclusive to that, of course. Other religions are just as readily opposed to one another as Christianity is to every single one of them, which, again, means that only one of them is true, since they can't all be true.

So, if you hold on to the ‘anything goes’ mindset too tightly, it’s going to come back to bite you. If anything goes, then things will start contradicting each other pretty soon, and if the answer to that is just to keep on saying “everything is equally true” or "it’s true for you, but not for me” or “everything is relative, there are no moral absolutes,” then you'll be continually committing a logical fallacy here. 

Nobody truly believes in relativism, of course. At least not when it comes to morality.

If you’re walking down the street at night and find yourself hoping nobody is going to suddenly jump you and take from you your phone and money, then it’s because you agree with me when I say being robbed is bad. Or are you instead going to happily hand the money you may well be working hard to earn to some coward who threatens violence if you don’t? Might as well hand him your apartment keys and have him carry away every shiny little thing that meets the eye.

So, stealing is bad. Nobody likes to be mugged. Period.

But you might argue: “Well, the thief certainly thinks it’s all right,” yeah ok, but if the thief himself were being robbed, he probably wouldn’t like it that much, now would he?

If there’s no objective moral standard for right and wrong, then issues like stealing, bullying, murder, rape, and others would be a simple matter of preference, like choosing your favorite color or food.

If relativism is true, then my belief that it is wrong can be true. Oops. 

If no one can know anything for sure, then no one can know anything for sure, including the former statement that... no one can know anything for sure.

Now, if there is an objective standard of morality, it follows that certain things are either good or not and that calling the good ‘bad' or the bad ‘good’ is against the principles of objective reality, or objective truth.

‘Objective truth’ is a pleonasm, but it must be stated, if only to reinforce what ‘truth’ actually means. It’s definite, it’s objective, it simply is. You can’t argue against truth.

So if relativism is self-refuting, then we know that people generally know right from wrong, even if they deny it by ascribing strange definitions to the concept of truth.

Good.

Can atheists prove there is no God?  

Unless atheists can demonstrate they came into being by their own power or that they have traversed through the universe and probed its every corner and beyond, no method they utilize to make their claim is substantial. 

The atheistic worldview has no direct evidence. Rather, it’s based on circumstantial evidence. In other words, evidence which is indirect and inferred by limiting circumstances. A person’s fingertips at the crime scene are not proof that this person committed the murder. Bob claiming he’s so angry with John he could kill him doesn’t prove Bob’s guilt when John is found dead a few weeks later. Neither does the fact that you don’t physically see God disprove His existence. 

Now, the most common example of direct evidence is eyewitness testimony. That is why atheists would need to demonstrate that they have created themselves in order to prove that God doesn’t exist. They would need to provide testimony to explain how they came to be, but they can’t. Rather, their indirect evidence is too weak by itself, which is why there are a lot of moral and philosophical arguments which are used to back up atheism. Many atheists use those arguments while swearing by naturalism. There isn't only a double standard to this approach, but also a logical fallacy.

When the Christian, however, engages in moral and philosophical arguments, many atheists disregard it and demand direct evidence of an empirical nature. It’s a double standard to demand a certain kind of evidence from others when they can’t offer it themselves to support their worldview.

If you ascribe validity to naturalism, can you prove that only empirical evidence (what is material and observable) is valid? Can you test this claim with empirical methods?

Undoubtedly atheists trust science. They put their faith in what is facts, but many do also in what is theory. Circumstantial evidence is given to a lot of scientific theories out there. It’s not very skeptical to treat theories based on indirect evidence as objective truth. Neither is it very skeptical to ascribe to worldviews which are based on circumstantial evidence. Think about it.

Now, Christianity does have circumstantial evidence, sure, but it also has a lot of direct evidence. In a court of law, for example, three eyewitnesses are already considered strong direct evidence, though not necessarily credible. The greater the number of eyewitnesses, the greater the credibility. 

We know that about five hundred people saw Jesus after His resurrection. We also have many personal testimonies of thousands of people remarking experiences with Jesus throughout history and in our time as well, not even mentioning various other arguments which together with those mentioned above make an incredibly strong case for cumulative evidence for God and Christianity.

Is it? Let’s take a look at the common definitions of faith according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: “allegiance to duty or a person,” “fidelity to one’s promises,” “sincerity of intentions,” “belief and trust in and loyalty to God,” “belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion,” “firm belief in something for which there is no proof,” “complete trust,” and “something that is believed especially with strong conviction.”

Belief without proof is one out of eight definitions of the English word ‘faith’. Is this definition therefore applicable to the biblical understanding of faith, or should only the other definitions be used when describing faith in God?

Faith Is Trust

The original word for faith in Greek is pistis. The definition of pistis is, according to Strong’s Concordance, faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness. The definition of pistis does not include the concept of blind faith or belief without evidence.

The New Testament, written in Greek, displays several occasions in which faith is described as pistis (Mark 11:22, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 9:22, Luke 5:20, Luke 17:5, Luke 18:8, Acts 3:16, 2 Cor. 5:7, Gal 3:2, 1 Thes 1:8, 2 Thes 1:4, 1 Tim 1:5,  — shall I go on?). Faith as ‘belief without evidence’ was a wholly unknown concept for the New Testament writers, since the word they used to mean ‘faith’ did not have this definition as one of its possible meanings like the word “faith” has in the English language. 

Considering the Bible as a historical document, one should never analyze it without its appropriate historical context. That includes the study of words in their original language. Since Christians rely on the Bible as instruction, they base the tenets of their faith in the biblical understanding of pistis, not on a modern definition of the English word ‘faith.’

Faith Is The Result of Evidence

The concept of faith and the concept of evidence are not mutually exclusive. Faith is trust and has nothing to do with whether the reasons behind that trust are good or bad.

The evidence behind that trust may or may not be reasonable on a objective level, but that has no relation to the faith itself of a Christian, which is the result of evidence, not a replacement of evidence.

We can see active examples of this in Scripture. Let’s take a look at three:

 Mark 5:25-29 tells the story of a woman suffering from a disease for twelve years. She heard reports about Jesus and His deeds (Mark 5:27) and came to the conclusion that He could heal her (Mark 5:28).

Because she heard the reports, she believed and trusted that Jesus could heal her. The reports were the evidence which resulted in her faith. Jesus even tells her in verse 34 that her faith made her well.

(John 10:25) Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,”

Jesus performed miracles to fulfill the prophecies that were written about Him, to confirm John the Baptist’s claims about Him (John 10:41-42) and His own claims about Himself.

Is Jesus implying that they should believe because He said so, or because there is evidence to back up His claims? He never tells them to have blind faith. In fact, He tells them in verse 37 and 38: If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;  but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

(Acts 1:3)  After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 

Why would Jesus bother appearing to the disciples and provide proof if faith were a matter of believing without evidence? If blind faith were a biblical concept, then the Bible would confirm this viewpoint in some passage, but not only it doesn’t, it illustrates the very opposite. 

Faith is Reasonable

If someone believes and trusts in God because they found evidence which convinced them of God’s existence, then the subsequent faith they have in God is reasonable.

(Matthew 22:37) And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

If you’re supposed to love God with all your mind, then you’re supposed to use your reasoning in how you love Him, as opposed to trusting Him with no aid from your cognitive facilities.

(Hebrews 11:19) Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

Abraham’s faith in God was not blind — he trusted in God and His promise of the many descendants. He reasoned that God could raise Isaac from the dead. He knew that God had always been faithful to him before; he knew God and trusted in His character.

(1 Peter 3:15) always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;

This passage urges Christians to be able to explain the reasoning behind our faith. If faith were belief without evidence, then why would this verse encourage Christians to provide reasons for their faith, to disclose the evidence which convinced them?

We can, therefore, use the Bible as a frame of reference for the Biblical definitions of words and certainly for the Christian worldview. So faith is not a “leap”, it’s the result of thinking and of considering. Faith is trust, reliance, assurance, confidence in God, His deeds, His decrees and His very character.