Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor), is the meta-theoretical principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
Wikipedia, Occam’s Razor
Occam’s razor is often cited as an evidence against the existence of God. The argument goes that if we can explain the universe without resorting to notions of God, then it is preferable to do so. Whether or not Occam’s razor actually applies in this situation (i.e., if the cosmological theories posited to get around an ex nihilo creation end up being unreasonably convoluted), this argument obviously has its appeal: why argue for the existence of something that we don’t need to explain what we see? Yet the appeal of this argument in itself belies its very unsuitability for this question, and in fact demonstrates just the opposite point.
We might rephrase the conclusion of the razor to say that “the most elegant solution is usually the correct one”. Or, “the most beautiful solution is usually the correct one. Occam’s razor is an a priori principle, a bias among otherwise equally well-descriptive theories which says the universe is fundamentally beautiful.
Why would the universe be fundamentally beautiful? Given two theories which explain all the evidence, what gives us license to prefer the simpler, more elegant, more beautiful one? We are beyond the realm of evidence, for this is the framework by which we must interpret it (hence meta-theoretical in the definition). And ultimately, if we are to say that the universe is systematically beautiful in any meaningful way, as Occam’s razor does, then we must explain that in a way that transcends chance and probability, for beauty in the sense of the elegance of an explicans is the antithesis of purposelessness.
Ultimately, science – the realm of the a posteriori – can only answer the question “how”. Things can have purpose in their own narrowly defined way – for example in natural selection and adaptation, there is a sense in which a feature of an animal can be said to be “for” something: legs for locomotion, eyes for vision. But the “why” of an anatomical feature stops at its usefulness to the environment. There can be no “why”, no beauty, beyond the narrow scope of what we define ourselves as “purpose” – in that case, survival. Yet we nevertheless speak of the beauty of nature through science; of the elegance of a theory – precisely because we have a priori biases like Occam’s Razor by which we can make aesthetic judgements on the “why”s among which we would have no other way of deciding.
So if we are to move beyond narrow and localized “why”s into a fundamental “why”, we must take seriously the assumption behind Occam’s Razor. The search for a grand and unified physical theory of everything – the quest to unify all the fundamental forces – would prove to be the ultimate (scientific) expression of universal beauty, as well as the ultimate application of Occam’s Razor. But such a search can only be warranted if we have a reason to assume the universe is fundamentally elegant; fundamentally beautiful.
Of course, Occam’s Razor is only a bias; weaker than an axiom. It does not prove the existence of a God; it assumes it. Therefore we phrase our proposition: to the extent that Occam’s Razor holds true, it suggests the existence of a fundamental universal beauty – i.e., a God.
Leave a Comment