Leprechauns & God

Christopher Hitchens accuses Christians of creating make-believe characters.  Belief in God is like believing in leprechauns.  Theism and leprechauns violate Occam's Razor, a kind of general principle that entities ought not be multiplies in explanations, at least none beyond what is necessary for the explanation.  Hitchens is confident that materialism explains the universe; thus God is unnecessary, just as leprechauns.  However, he's incorrect that materialism adequately explains the universe; and he's also wrong that God has no explanatory power.  God isn't like leprechauns because these little green men don't explain anything.

Materialism can't account for the beginning of the universe or morality, two major questions crying for explanation.  Various naturalistic theories attempt to get at the cause of the universe, how something came from nothing, but no theory is an adequate explanation and is actually philosophically unfeasible.  Effects need causes and God is a reasonable and adequate cause for the beginning of the universe.  William Lane Craig has advanced this argument best in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Morality is an unnatural, meaning nonmaterial, feature of the physical world.  Just for starters, moralities universality and incumbency just find adequate explanations in science.  The Moral Argument for God's existence has been advanced for centuries and scientific progress hasn't antiquated it.

Occam's Razor advises us to keep explanations simple. But it also guides us to multiply entities necessary to explain a phenomenon.  Materialism is too simple because it fails to explain all that needs explanation.  Leprechauns don't fill that role, but God does.

Comments

[Ed]

Would the fact that Occam was a theist... indeed he was a Franciscan friar... make this ironic, tragic, or just plain absurd?

[Shaun]

"Hitchens is confident that materialism explains the universe; thus God is unnecessary"

Even if the universe could be explained by materialism this doesn't make sense. Look, X is unnecessary. Therefore X must not exist.

Well, to me Hitchens is unnecessary. Is it then logical to think Hitchens doesn't exist?

[Wanda Zippler]

Thank you Ed for your comment I have added it to my notebook of cool observations. That I often refer to when debating others.

[tinkertim]

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, multiply not entity beyond necessity. Necessity is of course relative to our own acquisition of a comfortable belief that we can't quite justify but delight in explaining.

Occam's Razor (aka that thing that William of Ockham crafted so simply) is just that, a razor. It isn't quite a system to discern the unknown, more or less a guide while doing so.

I'm inclined to agree with you on every point. Nothing is insignificant, some things may simply not be significant in the scope of your life. I don't waste time on the inexplicable by attempting to make it explicable, I simply delight in experiencing the inexplicable without being hindered by a need to explain it. Say that three times fast.

This was a very entertaining, well crafted read! Thank you for your thoughts, I'll come back for more :)

[Jared]

Hitchens feels that materialism gets "first dibs" on explaining the universe because he sees it as a wholly naturalistic explanation that requires no faith. However, if you follow the thread of his thinking back far enough, it is simply hanging in midair since naturalism cannot explain the origin of the universe (as Melinda pointed out). I don't care how sturdy your pyramid of belief is, if the foundation is missing, it crumbles.
Unfortunately for Hitchens, he's either going to have to accept certain things on faith (and grant us the same exemptions in the discussion) or else abandon his quest for a wholly naturalistic universe.

[Jon]

Leprechauns do explain just as much as positing God if we grant those leprechauns two features; 1-the desire to create a universe, and 2-the ability to create a universe. There you go. Now leprechauns are as good an explanation as God.

And like God leprechauns are equally unfalsifiable. God used to be in the mountains. Well, we went to the mountains and didn't find him. So he was placed beyond the firmament. That solid dome that covers the entire earth. Well, we went beyond the supposed firmament, and we didn't find God. Suddenly now God is in an entire dimension that is inacessible to anybody. The pattern seems to be that God is always placed at a location where he is (at present) inaccessible. This is how leprechauns work.

Materialism may not have an explanation for the origin of the universe, but materialists are content to say they don't have all the answers. I think it would be better if Christians likewise gave up the teddy bear of certainty and simply managed to sleep at night without thinking they have all the answers.

[Damian]

I can't figure out how Occam's razor is supposedly satisfied by a strictly materialist explaination of the universe. The visible universe is an effect, the result of cause. This requires an infinite regress in causes and effects. How is this explaination simpler than a creator?
In the materialistic universe things are constantly changing ramdomly everything is in flux including his athiesim and yet he seems to be arguing that what he believes is not only "real", but that others should believe it too. And this is not religious???
By his own definition of the world and the universe, he is actually the one that believes in something that doesn't exist. He is just a collocation of DNA as Richard Dawkins would say and is dancing to its music. What we need to know is why his "athiestic dance" is better than our "thiestic dance" and then who says so and why should we care? This guy has used way too much of our time already.
NEXT ITEM......

"Well, to me Hitchens is unnecessary. Is it then logical to think Hitchens doesn't exist?"

ROFL, although I like Hitchens, this made me laugh. It reminds me of this http://www.pennyarcademerch.com/pat070321.html

"I think it would be better if Christians likewise gave up the teddy bear of certainty"

Teddy Bear!!! ROFL again. Well said Jon, I agree.

[Steve]

forgot my name, my bad

[Kevin W]

Jon wrote:

>>”Materialism may not have an explanation for the origin of the universe, but materialists are content to say they don't have all the answers.”

I wish this were true; most of them DO feel they have all the answers. They treat ‘not having all the answers’ as the only answer and rebuke those who feel otherwise. It’s odd how people can claim superior intelligence by claiming they don’t have any answers to life's questions. No college try; no nothing. All that can be offered is, 'So many things just are what they are.’ If this were the case with everything in life I’d be in great shape :-)

[Paul Scott Pruett]

The really ironic thing is that in an atheistic world, where we are supposedly free (nay, required) to manufacture our own meaning and "truth," fellows like Hitchens and Dawkins have the hubris to insist that the Christian system of meaning is neither "right" nor "good." These atheists want to be free to make their own meaning, but then they want to impose it upon the rest of society through politics and browbeating. Whether Christianity is true or false (whatever those words mean) is a separate, though important, question, but in either case I can still justly say to them, "Keep Your Mitts Off My Meaning."
http://pspruett.blogspot.com/2007/08/keep-your-mitts-off-my-meaning.html

[Sage S]

Jon,

We should definitely give up our certainty if we cannot support our claims with reasons and evidence. We also ought to hold each particular truth claim with whatever degree of certainty the evidence allows. This is true for everyone - Christian or otherwise.

Christians have enough certainty to, say, put our lives on the line (peacefully!) based on the certainty that what we believe is true. We should be humble where evidence does not establish reasonable certainty, and unequivocal where it does. Not everything is shrouded in a cloud of speculation.

[Brandon]

"Hitchens is confident that materialism explains the universe; thus God is unnecessary"

Even if the universe could be explained by materialism this doesn't make sense. Look, X is unnecessary. Therefore X must not exist.

Well, to me Hitchens is unnecessary. Is it then logical to think Hitchens doesn't exist?

- Hitchen's is actually only offering an alternate explanation not a refutation. After offering that explanation you must give your reasons and make your case. The point of Occams's Razor is not to make everything unnecessary. It's simply saying is saying if X is leading to Y. It's best to not have 5 X's leading to the Y when only 1 X will suffice. If you are to propose that Hitchens (X) has the explanation of the universe (Y) you don't need 5 Hitchens(5X's) to lead to (Y)When only one is neccesary.

[Brandon]

"I think it would be better if Christians likewise gave up the teddy bear of certainty and simply managed to sleep at night without thinking they have all the answers."

- I'm a Christian, a skeptical one at that. I've taken my time to look at the evidences that both sides have to offer and came to the conclusion that Christianity is true based on the evidences and I've seen and trust. I could be wrong about this. But it's not the kind of claim that is just made up I have good reasons for what I believe. I won't know if I'm right until I die and neither shall the atheist. I bet my life everyday on my beliefs and so do you. The "teddy bear of certainty" applies to the atheist as well. To hold the belief "there is no God" is to believe that statement is true. Otherwise you wouldn't believe it. And with that "teddy bear of certainty" you can sleep knowing there is no need to change and your not not accountable to a sovereign God. I was not willing to change my life to believe in a leprechaun but if God does exist and he left us evidences for or against His existence we should have an open mind and follow where the evidence leads us. I am willing to change my life if the Living God says that I should. This was not easy because I had to leave my old life completely behind. I liked being the boss of me and didn't like the idea of being held accountable for my actions. I would not choose the Christian lifestyle for fun and neither should you. But if it's true then it should be considered. WE ALL BET OUR LIVES EVERYDAY ON OUR BELIEFS. WE HAD BETTER BE SURE THAT THEY ARE TRUE

[Brandon]

LOL Sage you put it better than I did I should have refreshed my page a little sooner :)

[Paul A]

Hi Jon,

You wrote: "...but materialists are content to say they don't have all the answers. I think it would be better if Christians likewise gave up the teddy bear of certainty..."

First, materialists (e.g., Hitchens) don't (as a group, in general) demonstrate any lack of confidence in things for which he cannot possibly have full justification. Some may demonstrate the humility of their position, but the ones in the spotlight (to my eyes) do not.

Second, I gave up that teddy bear long ago. This is another Christian charicature (much like the ones Hitchens constructs) that makes for an easy strawman. Yes, there are plenty of Christians that demonstrate confidence in beliefs for which they have no justification, but there are plenty more that have good reasons for the beliefs they hold, and are fully willing to admit they don't hold "all the answers". I have yet to meet *anyone* that would make a claim of omniscience.

[Sage S]

Brandon,

Two people in different places had the identical Christian response to a specific charge against our faith.

Evidence of a personal God intimately involved in our lives?

[Aaron Snell]

>>Leprechauns do explain just as much as positing God if we grant those leprechauns two features; 1-the desire to create a universe, and 2-the ability to create a universe. There you go. Now leprechauns are as good an explanation as God.

Um, Jon...that's not a leprechaun - that's God.

[Sage S]

We're looking for the best explanation. Saying that aliens are controlling the stock market from Mars might be within the realm of possibility, but it is not the most reasonable explanation for all the evidence.

[Sage S]

My point being - just because a theory makes sense out of all the data doesn't make it the most reasonable or likely explanation.

[Brandon]

"Evidence of a personal God intimately involved in our lives?"

-The evidence keeps pilling up doesn't it.

[Brad]

Well this certainly was a pleasure to read (as well as the various responses). Excellent food for thought today :)

[Agilius]

>There you go. Now leprechauns are as good an explanation as God.

Oftentimes, leprechauns are also as good an explan as humans; But this depends on the particular attributes in play for a given phenomenon. Same with god.

[Brandon]

"My point being - just because a theory makes sense out of all the data doesn't make it the most reasonable or likely explanation."

- The question is does your truth claim correspond to reality and and does it have a complete world view. The four philosophical elements that every worldview or belief system must answer: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. If your worldview does not explain the reality of each of these elements satisfactorily, it is incomplete. In a court of law you don't need a smoking gun to win a case simply the best explanation of the events that take place in relation to the truth. I haven't read any leprechauns responses to how the world really is but I have read Jesus's explanations. And theses explanations hold true both historically and in everyday life. His worldview is reality

[doug t]

Bubble universes, baby universes, looping universe, rubber-band universes, abiogenesis, matter from nothing, information from nothing, meaning from nothing, morality from nothing = leprechans.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." - GK Chesterton.

[Mike Westfall]

> ... materialists are content to say they don't have all the answers.

No they're not. Where do you think that knowledge of sub-atomic (heck, even molecular) physics comes from? Not because materialists were content to "not have all the answers."

[Brad B]

Hi Mike, your point is well taken, but I would claim that the backbone of science, logic and knowledge are tools materialists use in a contrary fashion to their perfect use when the answer is presupposed-that there is or, can be no God. It's searching for justification to live as though there is no judge to hold them responsible.

Doug t, Niiiiiccccce reference.

Brad B

[Francis Beckwith]

Ockham was a nominalist. That is, he believed that essences or natures were not real substances, but merely names that we attribute to entities in the world that have similar characteristics. Ockham's "razor" was an attack upon metaphysical realism, which was the beginning of the end, IMHO. So, no longer was the intellect capable of knowing the essences or natures of things. Rather, it was the intellect's naming power that was the "reality" behind the essences or natures.

Remember in the Abolition of Man when Lewis talks about the Little Green Book? He's talking about nominalism, that the value and nature of things is the result of our minds rather than a discovery of our minds.

For Ockham, God's goodness is not intrinsic to his nature, but rather, whatever God wills is good because he wills it. This is the beginning of Volunterism in moral theology, paleo-Calvinism if you will. It is a completely bankrupt view of God that equates God's sovereignty with unrestrained willfulness.

Although it wasn't decisive in my decision to return to the Catholic Church, Protestant sorteriology's dependence on nominalism made me more receptive to appreciating the Catholicism.

For a helpful article on this subject, go here: http://www.catholicculture.org/
library/view.cfm?recnum=6802

[Nick]

I'm still waiting for people who use this argument to even disprove leprechauns. Now I do not think they exist, but I could not prove that they don't. If they are the magical creatures they are in stories, there's probably a good reason we don't see them. If we wake up tomorrow and a leprechaun has been found, theism still stands. What of atheism though?