Wainright points out the fact that these are not �rules�. These are just guidelines for evaluating metaphysical systems. These criteria express ideas that are really nothing more than common sense, but are often over looked. Wainright asks us to open our eyes and make our own judgments on what is right and wrong. These criteria are just another toll that we can use. The criteria are a list of twelve basic ideas that we should use in judging a metaphysical concept.
To explain them more thoroughly I shall take the concept of God creating the universe through the twelve criteria. First, however, I must define the system or theory. To save time I shall not go into the intricate details of this theory. I shall instead paraphrase my ideas. I believe that God is responsible for the creation of the universe. The universe is the physical extension of an immaterial God. Space and time has existed forever. However, the universe is a creation by God. One might ask how this is possible. I answer simply. Space and time are both infinite. That means that they have no end. It also means that they have no beginning. We have a beginning for the universe. It started with the big bang. It is conceivable that there will also be an end for the universe. One day it may begin to contract in upon itself until another Big Bang occurs. Then another universe will begin. This infinite God is responsible for the movement of the universe inside the inside the infinite bounds of space and time. He works by the basic laws of nature that he established with that universe. It is conceivable that if he was to create another universe its laws could be different. The processes
1. The facts that the system explains must actually exist. I am not basing my argument for the existence of God or the idea that he created the universe on any subjective ideals. Instead I am basing it on its consistency with objective scientific fact. Furthermore, I am also going to show how well it fits with the other criteria.
2. A good metaphysical system should be compatible with well-established scientific facts. The idea of a God creating the universe does not contradict any established scientific facts or theories. As a matter of fact the idea of God creating the universe can explain many things that science fails to.
3. It must be logically consistent. It has been proved many times over that the existence of God is logically possible.
4. It shouldn�t be self-stultifying. A view is self-stultifying if its assertion implies that it can�t be known to be true, or its assertion implies that it is false or can�t be expressed. There is nothing in the idea of God creating the universe that demonstrates these two qualities.
5. Adequate metaphysical systems should also be coherent. There does not seem to be anything incoherent about the idea that God could create the universe.
6. Simpler systems are preferable to complex ones. Here we run into a slight problem. A system that says God didn�t create the universe is simpler that one that says God did. However it is not so cut and dry as that. A system that says God does exist can explain more than a system that does not. A system that explains more but is slightly more complicated is preferable to one that is simpler but explains less.
7. Good metaphysical systems avoid ad hoc hypotheses. An ad hoc hypothesis has no independent plausibility either implied by the theory or naturally suggested by it. Many people use ad hoc theories in an attempt to explain facts that do not fit in their system. For example Christian literalists have attempted to explain evidence of geological and biological evolution by saying that God put the evidence there in an attempt to mislead us into thinking that evolution was real. However, this theory is not fitting with the rest of their system. Nor does it offer any real answers. Why would God purposely mislead his creation? My theory of God�s creation of the universe does not have any of these complications.
8. Metaphysical explanations should be precise. In my explanation of the theory I tried to be as precise as I could. However, this is a criterion with no limit. We are always striving for a system that is more precise than the one before it. If one system is more precise it is favored over one that is less precise.
9. A systems scope is also important. This is also a criterion with out end. I have tried to make my explanation as broad as possible. However, someone is sure to come up with a system that is able to take more things into account than mine. Like the previous criterion, a system that has a broader scope is preferable to one that is limited.
10. One should also consider a systems fruitfulness. What this means is that the system must be useful. If it doesn�t answer any real questions in people�s lives then it is not as good as a system that does. My theory takes steps to provide answers for many questions.
11. Good metaphysical systems provide illuminating explanations of the phenomena within their explanatory range. What this means is that the system tries to clarify parts of the system that seem either confusing. It also tries to integrate into the system things that appear to be contradictory. I have tried with my theory to do this.
12. Philosophical theories should be judged by �their efficacy in the life-process of mankind�. What this is saying is that the metaphysical system must be of some real use to us in our every day lives. It has to try to explain some of our most fundamental questions. I can�t speak for everyone, but my ideas certainly explain a lot of things for me. Furthermore, it gives me a lot of comfort in my life.
Now I have taken the theory of God creating the universe through Wainright�s twelve criteria. We have seen that it stands up to all twelve of them quite successfully. However, this is not all there is to it. Each of us must compare this system to other systems in an effort to decide which system is best for us. We do this by deciding which system fits the criteria better than others. This is the purpose of Wainright�s criteria. To help make our decisions easier and to make them more confident.
This is not to say that Wainright�s criteria don�t have problems. After all we are dealing with complicated metaphysical issues. These kinds of things do not have straightforward answers. To think these twelve criteria can lead us to an answer is to be a bit arrogant. Wainright�s argument says that it is completely all right to base our ideas on purely circumstantial evidence. These criteria offer no real objective evidence for anything. How can they really tell us anything? They can be made to apply to any situation. How can something this vague be a valuable tool for making educated decisions on any topic? They do not really say anything because nothing can really be said about these topics. This is because metaphysical issues are completely subjective. Why should we be spending our lives worrying about them anyways? After all, we will never get a definitive answer either way. We should spend our time on objective matters. These are the real questions and we can find the answers to them. Maybe Wainright�s criteria can find new life being applied to objective issues. It seems to be a waste analyzing things with no answers.
Personally I find that Wainright�s criteria are quite useful. I see much merit in them. Metaphysical issues are very complicated. They ARE very subjective. This does not mean that we can�t discover some sort of answer, even if it is just a private answer. Metaphysical systems must be tooled to the individual. We are each responsible for discovering which answers work best for us. When people say that there are no right answers they have a real point, but they overlook something important. The fact that there are also no wrong answers. Wainright�s twelve criteria are an important method for helping us discover which systems work best for us.