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