[Crimson Dynamo]

William of Ockham (1285-1349) points out that, where one is presented with two hypotheses that are otherwise equally well-supported by the available evidence, you should always pick the simplest hypothesis. In particular, we shouldn’t gratuitously introduce any superfluous entities. This principle, known as Ockham’s razor, is very sensible. Take, for example, these two hypotheses:

A: There are invisible, intangible and immaterial fairies at the bottom of the garden, in addition to the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on.

B: There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, just the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on.

Everything I have observed fits both hypotheses equally well. After all, if the fairies at the bottom of my garden are invisible, intangible and immaterial, then I shouldn’t expect to observe any evidence of their presence, should I? Does the fact that the available evidence fits both hypothesis equally well mean that I suspend judgement on whether or not there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?

Of course not. The rational thing to believe is that there are no fairies. For that’s the simplest hypothesis. Why introduce the unnecessary fairies?

Similarly, if the available evidence were equally to fit both atheism and theism, then atheism would be the rational position to adopt. For the atheistic hypothesis is simpler: it sticks with just the natural world we see around us and dispenses with the additional, supernatural being.


https://humanism.org.uk/about/humani...ng-with-faith/