Hitchen’s Razor simply tells us that anything that is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.  This is not just a matter of thinking.  It is a matter of fairness.  And respect for the other person who disagrees with you.  It puts you and the other on the level playing field.

Hitchen’s Razor has to do with the need for decent evidence for or against some claim.  The evidence that is against a claim is for the opposite of the claim.

It relates to the fact that possibilities do not count. A person saying, “Maybe Jesus did rise from the dead despite the poor evidence” may as well say nothing. Why? Because there is another implicit maybe. “Maybe he did not”. So it's good for nothing. An argument that is its own counter-argument is not an argument but hot air.  A maybe on its own comes with other unsaid maybes.  You have to be honest about that.

An argument that can be its own counter-argument is not an argument at all though it says it is.  It's a guess.  It cuts both ways. You may as well say x makes something unlikely as say it that it makes it likely.  You may as well say nothing.  The argument is not concerned about evidence so it is inherently anti-truth and anti-science.   When an assertion cuts both ways, not saying it is as good and helpful as saying it. So you are speaking just because you want the other person not to see that and to be influenced by you. You have your position. Your opponent has their's. Both of them are directly equivalent for each one has the exact same flaws as the other. You are trying to overreach your opponent when you cannot.

Take for example the Christian saying to an LGBT person, "Sexuality is only between males and females. God does not make mistakes. Your sexuality is a fetish and is not a sexuality." The LGBT person will say, "God made me the way I am. God does not make mistakes. My sexuality or gender identity is real." This does not help at all for the weaknesses in what the Christian has said apply equally to what the LGBT person has said. Christians say that this is an error of false equivalence.  Penis belonging in vagina is not the same thing as what happens between a same sex couple.  Staying the way you were born is not equivalent to going down the medical transgender route.  Trans as in a person assigned male at birth having interventions to live as a female or a person assigned female at birth having interventions to live as a male is not the same as being a nonbinary or genderless person.

The LGBT person is giving another person the power to use the God leverage against them.  This is not being supportive of their own cause.

The trans who says their body is wrong and a lie has to blame God if they believe in him.  To say God has not made a mistake then and to say he has not made a mistake if the person's gender matches their sexed body is just stupid.  If trans is valid it is possible that you could be meant to be trans and your body accidentally matches who you are!

If x is saying something is true then it is up to x to back that up.

If I tell you the Bigfoot is nearby, I need evidence from you.  I need you to show me a photo or a footprint.  It does not matter if the evidence is poor or whatever.  You owe it to me to show me.

If I tell you God made all things and lives in my heart then what?  I have to offer evidence.  Saying it is not enough.

This is not the same as the Bigfoot claim.  It is worse.  The Bigfoot is only a creature but how you are claiming that it and you and me all depend on this God and it is only because of him you are able to speak at all and that he puts his stamp on what you say and would say the same thing himself if I were his ventriloquist dummy.

If you need ten pictures of Bigfoot you need countless ones for God [if pictures could help]!  Notice you are not just making a claim for yourself, you are claiming God is claiming with you and through you and in you.  God expresses himself in what he makes.  See the point?

Maybe I should introduce the notion of, “Your big claims, magical claims, amazing claims come with great responsibility. If you are not taking it then grow up and take it and give me reasons why your behaviour is justified.” It's irresponsible to treat terrible realities such as suffering to make religious guesses about.  Religion cannot give clear evidence that suffering leads to good and is worthwhile.  Good following suffering may have had little to do with it and may be an unintended bit of luck.  And as the good will soon give way to evil again we are back where we started.  When one plague ends another starts.  If you truly have rapport with people and respect you will not be imposing meaning on their suffering for it is not about you trying to immunise yourself against proof that your pet faith idea is false.  It is about them.  It is their job.  God believers may deny that any evil is ever useless which is a refusal to admit that if they see gratuitous and futile and wanton evil that they will let themselves recognise it.  This allows them to say that no evil refutes the love of God.  They should be agnostic on whether evil is inexcusable or not for a God.  And openly.

In itself and because of how much human nature insists on things being true without evidence Hitchen's Razor is extremely valuable.  Apply it without mercy.  Simply avoid giving opinion and give evidence instead.  If you don't, you care more about control more than your cause. 


No Copyright