Write a three-page essay (no less than 800 words, no more than 1200) in response to the following prompt:
In Chapter 3, we learned about Ockham’s Razor, an argumentative strategy developed in the Middle Ages that states: “What can be done with fewer terms is done in vain with more” (Palmer 76). And, we saw it applied several times by the empiricists to argue against the rationalists’ arguments for ‘innate ideas.’ But, is it an effective tool for analyzing the proofs of God we have encountered in Chapter 5? Keep in mind, Ockham was a friar/theologian himself! First, briefly explain the concept of Ockham’s Razor and give an example of one debate from Chapter 3 where it appears to you to be used successfully (there are several instances where it occurs). Second, turn to the three theistic arguments of Anselm and Aquinas, and tell me, in terms of at least two of them, does the Razor ‘work’ here against these arguments, and why or why not? Think of the Ontological Argument (Anselm/Descartes), the Cosmological Argument (Aquinas), and the Teleological Argument (Aquinas), and think of the objections posed to each, as given by Palmer. Consider the two arguments, one at a time, arguing whether an application of the Razor would yield a simpler explanation than the theistic conclusion given. Or, is God actually a simpler explanation in some instances? Third and finally, reflect on Palmer’s claim: “it’s as if the medievals were giving an account to themselves of the rational status of their belief—or their knowledge—of God” (Palmer 157). Why do you think proofs for God’s existence would be taken most seriously at a time when everyone already believed in God? Can you think of an analogy to help make sense of this? In light of this, would ‘proofs’ ultimately be the right way to describe these three arguments?