[Music]
you know another major part of hitch's
book has to do with Arguments for God's
existence hitch's basic argument is God
is a hypothesis that we do not need that
natural events can be explained through
natural causality he invokes ironically
enough William of akam who was a
medieval frier and his famous principle
aam's Razer he said when confronted with
a variety of explanations for a given
phenomenon always prefer the simplest
explanation that's a good principle akam
said don't multiply entities
unnecessarily he meant don't look for
elaborate causes when a very simple
explanation
suffices Hitchens applies aam's Razer to
many of the arguments for God's
existence God is a hypothesis that we do
not require we can explain natural
phenomena we explain uh the world as a
whole through natural
causality I would suggest that what's
going on here is a sort of category
error and it's an error made by an awful
lot of the atheists the tendency to
think of God As One competing cause
among many God as one cause within the
context of mechanistic causes let me
give you an
example if you were to say why is the
weather the way it is today so it's a
cloudy overcast day why is it this way
you say well it's you know moisture from
the Gulf of Mexico it's the way the
winds are going it's the a buckling of
the jet stream it's we mention all sorts
of factors and we say well that's an
adequate explanation for the way the
weather is what wouldn't you say you're
a religious person you wouldn't say well
the weather's this way because the
buckling of the jet stream because
moisture from the Gulf of Mexico because
of God and because of the way the winds
are blowing well see we'd smile at that
because God is not one of the competing
causes among many from a mechanistic
standpoint we have sufficiently
explained the weather by appealing to
all these causes we don't need to invoke
God that's true another example how do
you make a cherry pie well you need
cherries and you need starch you need
sugar you need flour and water and the
Heat of the oven and the skill of the
baker yeah okay that explains the Cherry
Pie what wouldn't a religious person say
how do you make a cherry pie well you
need cherries and water and God and
starch and well no that's a category
mistake as though God is one of the
causes among many that produces in
effect who is
God God Is Not What corresponds to that
kind of question but rather to this kind
of
question why is there something rather
than nothing that's haider's question
it's a philosophical question in his
version but that's fundamentally a
religious question why is there
something rather than
nothing why is there this whole Nexus of
finite causes at all why are there
Cherry starch sugar water uh heat of the
oven skill of the Baker at all why is
there a world at all now that's a
religious question can a Christian
believe in the Big Bang absolutely in a
certain way that's just an open question
how do the scientists work out the
details of how the universe evolved
mechanistically sure this theory that
theory this approach that approach and
it's certain way the religious person
can remain very indifferent to all that
creation is not getting at the mechanism
of how things evolve and how things uh
relate to each other creation is
happening now creation is the event by
which God here and now is giving rise to
the totality of the universe and
sustaining it in existence no one's
going to claim that the Book of Genesis
is scientific cosmology it's a
theological meditation on the fact of
creation um so again that's a category
mistake if we read the book of Genesis
as straightforward cosmology we have the
big bang and you have the Genesis that's
apples and oranges it's simply comparing
apples and oranges and that's a mistake
that the atheists will often make in
their biblical interpretation now why
should this world which does not contain
within itself the reason for its own
being why should it exist that's the
level where we're getting at the
existence of God when religious people
talk about proofs for God's existence
they're not looking at mechanistic
demonstrations
they're saying the world as a totality
is contingent it's non
self-explanatory and therefore it points
finally toward that which does exist
through itself I am who I am the god
who's not a being among many but the
sheer Act of being itself now we can
argue about this philosophers and
theologians have argued about it for
centuries but we won't even get off the
ground if we make the category mistake
that so many the atheists make that is
one being among many that's what God is
Not can we apply aam's razor sure we
should you don't invoke God as one cause
among many to explain the weather or the
evolution of species or cherry
pies I think once we make that move we
can have a better argument about God's
existence
[Music]
n