[soc.religion.christian] Why believe? - Occam's Razor

ldh@uunet.uu.net (Lonnie D Harvel) (03/12/91)

I was unaware that Occam's Razor was used to justify Atheism.
Occam's Razor is:

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

I do not see how that impacts a faith in God.  God is a simple
explanation for many complex and currently unsolvable problems,
like "who set off the Bang".  Occam's Razor cannot be used
to justify either Theism or Atheism.


Anyway, I thought Occam was Christian.

Lonnie

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================

lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) (03/14/91)

In article <Mar.12.04.32.56.1991.1862@athos.rutgers.edu> mailrus!gatech!eedsp!ldh@uunet.uu.net (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
>I was unaware that Occam's Razor was used to justify Atheism.
>Occam's Razor is:
>
>"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."
>
>I do not see how that impacts a faith in God.  God is a simple
>explanation for many complex and currently unsolvable problems,
>like "who set off the Bang".  Occam's Razor cannot be used
>to justify either Theism or Atheism.

A very good friend of mine who is an agnostic explains that the "God
postulate" is undecidable -- meaning that one can either take it or
not and obtain a formally consistent system.  However, since the
system without the "God postulate" is enough to explain "everything",
it should be discarded.  I think this is how most atheists / agnostics
invoke Occam's Razor.

Now, a few problems that I personally see with this.  First, it's not
proven that the "God postulate" is undecidable -- so inconsistencies
could arise (and you list one, namely, Who is the Prime Mover --
although this is usually countered with some anthropic principle or
another).  Second, I would claim that even if the "God postulate" is
undecidable, the system obtained with the "God postulate" is much more
rich than the one without it, and is necessary to explain alot about
reality.

I hate to do this because it may be stretching things a little bit,
but take the axiom of choice as a mathematical analogy.  One can use
it or not and get a formally consistent system either way.  However,
much of the modern mathematical tools which are used with quantum
mechanics rest on the axiom of choice.  It seems that, although the
axiom of choice is undecidable, the system with the axiom of choice
gives us vastly more equipment with which to deal with reality -- and
with which to deal *correctly* with reality.

Except for the Prime Mover question, one might argue, as my friend
does, that it's not clear that the "God postulate" is necessary to
explain anything in reality.  This may be true in a scientific sense,
but we all know that there is much more to this life than science.
This is a question that I think a system with the "God postulate" can
answer and a system without it cannot answer: "Why should I be kind to
my wife when I don't feel like it?"

Now, before everyone replies with: "Because you want her to be nice to
you!" please realize that my question is somewhat more subtle.  I know
that I *should* be kind to her, whether I feel like it or not, and
whether I will ever get anything out of it or not.  I just should,
because it is absolutely the right thing to do.  But, where does this
"right thing to do" come from?  I claim that one cannot satisfactorily
explain it without the "God postulate."


>Anyway, I thought Occam was Christian.

Is this true?   This would be very ironic!

Regards,
Andrew

  Andrew Lumsdaine               "We don't understand the software, and 
  lums@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu       sometimes we don't understand the hardware, 
  MIT RLE                         but we can *see* the blinking lights!"

salem@racquel.sri.com (Bruce B. Salem) (03/19/91)

lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) writes:

>In article <Mar.12.04.32.56.1991.1862@athos.rutgers.edu> mailrus!gatech!eedsp!ldh@uunet.uu.net (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
>>I was unaware that Occam's Razor was used to justify Atheism.
>>Occam's Razor is:
>>
>>"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."
>>
>>I do not see how that impacts a faith in God.  God is a simple
>>explanation for many complex and currently unsolvable problems,
>>like "who set off the Bang".  Occam's Razor cannot be used
>>to justify either Theism or Atheism.

>A very good friend of mine who is an agnostic explains that the "God
>postulate" is undecidable -- meaning that one can either take it or
>not and obtain a formally consistent system.  However, since the
>system without the "God postulate" is enough to explain "everything",
>it should be discarded.  I think this is how most atheists / agnostics
>invoke Occam's Razor.

	I don't think Occam's Razor has anything to do with deciding
Theism/Atheism since deciding this is beyond interpetations of
evidence. Specfically it applies to the case where there is agreement
on the facts but there are one or more alternative models to explain
the facts. Occam's Razor is a mandate to choose the least complicated and
extraordinary of the models until new facts render one model more
suitable than the alternatives, when used with the idea of parsimony.
It also says that there must be some way to decide amomg the
alternatives.

	What you find with Theism/Atheism as Creationism/Evolution is
that there is no general agreements in the debate on the facts, or
there is a shifting of the terms in the debate. The former does not
submit to evidence, the latter is decidable but the evidence that
decides it is ignored by the Creationists and the methods used to
get and use this evidence, from Biology, does not deal with the
ad hoc reasoning within Creationism. Neither of these cases can be
resolved with Occam's Razor.

Bruce Salem

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) (03/19/91)

lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) writes:
>A very good friend of mine who is an agnostic explains that the "God
>postulate" is undecidable -- meaning that one can either take it or
>not and obtain a formally consistent system.  However, since the
>system without the "God postulate" is enough to explain "everything",
>it should be discarded.  I think this is how most atheists / agnostics
>invoke Occam's Razor.

Sounds about right.

>...I would claim that even if the "God postulate" is
>undecidable, the system obtained with the "God postulate" is much more
>rich than the one without it, and is necessary to explain alot about
>reality.

To address the first part of your claim (richness), this does not
make it more likely; wouldn't a heirarchy of gods be even richer, and
therefore preferred over monotheism?  Should I assume that Ed McMahon
will give me ten million dollars since this gives my life more
possibilities than the alternative?

The second part of your claim is, of course, the key - is a "God postulate"
*necessary* to explain reality?  Obviously the non-theists don't see
it as necessary, or they wouldn't see the system without the "God postulate"
as having the same explanatory power as the system with the "God postulate".

>This is a question that I think a system with the "God postulate" can
>answer and a system without it cannot answer: "Why should I be kind to
>my wife when I don't feel like it?"

>...I claim that one cannot satisfactorily
>explain it without the "God postulate."

*I* can explain them to myself, to *my* satisfaction, but I doubt that
I can explain them to *your* satisfaction; here's why:

Your question contains the assumption "I should be kind to my wife".
I have many reasons why *I* should be kind to my wife, and none of
them involve gods.  If you regard the reasons to be kind to your
wife to be intimately connected with your religious views, then it
isn't surprising when explanations omitting your religious views seem
inadequate, or at least not very compelling.

In short, your "God postulate" has explanatory power for you, but not
for me.  I can remove the "God postulate" without losing explanatory
power; you cannot.  Therefore, I see Occam's razor as applying, and you
see it as not applying.

>Regards,
>Andrew

---
Merlyn LeRoy