And another thing

Wednesday, 10th December 2008

A simple explanation for the origins of the universe — and us too

Some people maintain that, in the age of the internet and Google, public lectures are an outmoded way of acquiring knowledge. I don’t agree. They demand effort to get to, fighting London’s horrid traffic, crowded tubes, parking problems etc., and that is a prolegomenon to concentration. They also force one to follow an argument with no skipping. An uncomfortable setting is a further stimulus to thought. The Royal Institute of Philosophy’s annual lecture series this winter on religion, organised by Professor Anthony O’Hear, is in a room at University College, a new one since it seems to be made of plywood and cardboard. The seats are linked in groups of four on the Eton boating song principle of swing, swing together, since if a neighbour shifts his arse you feel it too. When I attended, the heating system, UCL being short of money, was turned right up, and since the room was packed, with people sitting on the floor, we were in the black hole of Calcutta. As if to compensate, the extremely complicated microphone system did not work at all. Happily, the speaker, Richard Swinburne, has a vigorous and clear voice, so we heard it all.

This successful resort to simple speech, as opposed to advanced electronic gimmickry which may not function, was a paradigm of the talk, entitled ‘God as the Simplest Explanation of the Universe’. Swinburne was, from 1985 to his retirement, Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oxford and has published a dozen books on the probability of God’s existence, and related topics. His preference for simplicity in dealing with apparently difficult matters such as the origins of the universe was epitomised by his thesis, which was audaciously uncomplex and direct. It is a preference I share, as a historian, for I find that most events have simple, even obvious, causes. Complicated explanations always involve a frenzied search for evidence, and its unwarranted manipulation, when found. The same principle applies, as a rule, to the way the world is run. If Britain is entering the current depression with the weakest of the major economies, as seems to be the case, that is due to the obvious and simple reason that it has had, for 11 years, an inexpert and spendthrift Labour government. When, aged 16, I first read Karl Popper, I took instantly to his view that a hypothesis ought to be simple, limited in scope and easily verifiable.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Paul Johnson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Julian Fruppapoipepauppioioip

December 11th, 2008 3:54pm Report this comment

Oh, well, Galileo must have been wrong, I suppose.

Cogito Ergosum

December 11th, 2008 10:31pm Report this comment

Simplicity is a secondary attribute of any hypothesis. The primary test is whether it explains: really explains, with numbers rather than words.

To judge a hypothesis by its simplicity is like judging a car by its appearance, not by how it goes.

Ben

December 11th, 2008 11:39pm Report this comment

The scientific acceptance of the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory of the origin of the universe is a boost for theism. For science now asserts that there was a creation.

Scientific theories are getting better as time advances. It is wrong to dismiss string theory and such as mere fads of fashion. They are just mathematically difficult, and it will take more time to get them right.

Equally it is wrong to dismiss Freud on Popperian grounds. Because he was a pioneer, Freud made errors. But his scientific discoveries are immense. He discovered the unconscious, displacement, projection, suppression and complexes. All solid scientific achievements.

Geoffrey Transom

December 14th, 2008 12:15am Report this comment

Epicurus was right - if God is willing [to prevent the existence of evil] but unable, then why call him God?

An omniscient God knows the entire timeline of his creation BEFORE he even sets it in motion - he knows a priori which fork each of us will choose, and he has known since before the Creation. Whence derives free will when God already KNOWS what decision will be made?

If there are 'gaps' in God's knowledge - that is, if there are parts of the timeline of the universe of which he is unaware, and possible decision-tree elements therein (in Rumsfeld-speak, "unknown unknowns")... again - why call him God?

Sorry Mr Johnson, you can't have an omniscient omnipotent God in a universe containing vile parasitic scum like Phoney Blair, George Brokeback Bush and Gordo McBrooon.

Cheers

Felipe Ordo�ez de Rivera

December 18th, 2008 3:00pm Report this comment

What tosh. Mr Johnson's argument is ludicrous, as well as being at odds with the conditions laid down by his hero Popper. What Mr Johnson overlooks is that he has said that the explanation must be verifiable. And just how does he propose one verifies the existence of the mega-sky-fairy he calls his God? Alas, typical Christian self-delusion, and certainly not a "simple explanation" of the origin of the Universe. Simple, yes, but in the Spanish sense of "simple", i.e. mentally impaired.