Is Occam's Razor atheistic?

[KingsGambit]

This may sound like a dumb question, but I am aware of a fairly well known Christian individual who firmly believes that it is. Aside from the fact that it gets its name from a Franciscan friar, it is a standard weapon in WLC's arsenal, paired with the KLA. Is there anybody else out there who feels that it is?

[Quantum Weirdness]

The only possible way I could conceive of someone thinking Occam's razor is atheistic is that it generally rejects supernatural claims in favor of natural ones.

[David Hayward]

The only possible way I could conceive of someone thinking Occam's Razor is atheistic is that it generally rejects supernatural claims in favor of natural ones.

Occam's razor doesn't have to be either atheistic or pro-natural (meaning pro-materialism). Playing devil's advocate, I can use Occam's Razor to argue that although a materialist's universe (together with the fallibility of the senses) is a very very good explanation of why things aren't how they seem (or why reality is different from experience), I definitely shouldn't complicate the matter by considering material reality to be anything more than a very very good explanation.

Occam's Razor would allow me to ignore any claims that material reality actually exists, and to say that natural explanations are nothing but natural explanations. (Very very good ones, of course, but having no ontological status above whatever ontological status a good explanation has.)

This is fun.

[shunyadragon]

I consider the materialist reality, and natural explanations are excellent, even outstanding, as far as they go, but I am a theist, though a skeptical theist. I play the Devil's advocate big time. I consider the only possible theist argument is from a more universal perspective in harmony with the naturalist perspective. The ancient world views of Judaism, Christianity and Islam fail dramatically and miserably.

My view is I consider Occam's Razor to be a theist.

[robrecht]

This may sound like a dumb question, but I am aware of a fairly well known Christian individual who firmly believes that it is. Aside from the fact that it gets its name from a Franciscan friar, it is a standard weapon in WLC's arsenal, paired with the KLA. Is there anybody else out there who feels that it is?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#4.1

[David Hayward]

Thanks, robrecht, for the educated perspective.

[KingsGambit]

Thanks, robrecht, for the educated perspective.

Hear, hear. (Or is it here, here?)

[David Hayward]

Hear, hear. (Or is it here, here?)

[Carrikature]

Like all good tools, it is amoral, and therefore unaffiliated. If any camp desires to give up the useful tools at their disposal, that is their folly.

[Rushing Jaws]

"Aside from the fact that it gets its name from a Franciscan friar..."

## Which is relevant how, though ? Its logical status would be the same, whether it came from a Franciscan friar, Plato, William James, Cotton Mather, Charles Finney, the Dalai Lama, Margaret Sanger, Iggy Pop, or Richard Dawkins. If it is a valid intellectual tool, then so it is, regardless of the morality, race, colour, creed, religion, marital status, sex, orientation, politics, employment or lack thereof, eye-colour, hair-colour, culture, or any other detail of its originator.

What is atheistic about the "principle of parsimony" (as it is also called) ?

[Rushing Jaws]

If it were still possible to "Like" posts, I'd give one to Carrikature's. This will have to do.

.

[Teallaura]

Hear, hear. (Or is it here, here?)

Hear, hear - it comes from 'hear him'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear%2C_hear