Occam's Razor and God

[LukeS]

. What can be ascertained by science is whether the universe always existed (it did not), **and whether it gives all the appearance of being designed (it does). **

The problem with the second part is, if everything is “designed”, then the argument from design undercuts or deconstructs its own terminology. This is because the definition of design stems from examples of complex, intelligent, human craftsmanship understood *over and against *things which were not designed like piles of rubbish or snow drifts. The former artifacts are understood to be intelligently caused and the latter are not. The examples are paradigmatic of design and non-design.There is a “binary opposition.”

So whats the problem with the argument from design? Well, in seeing the a similar complexity in natural “accidental” phenomena as artifacts, the initial taxonomical binary opposition is undermined. One response, the creationist response, is to say “nature has a intelligent cause”, but another is that “intelligence, and human craftsmanship, have a natural cause and are nothing special.”

Now to Occam. It would seem sthat creationism (“intelligent, supernatural cause”) adds an non-natural element to ones ontology. It would seem that the latter (“intelligence is natural”) makes do with a monistic ontology, yet has similar explanatory power.

What do you think?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This is because the definition of design stems from examples of complex, intelligent, human craftsmanship understood over and against things which were not designed like piles of rubbish or snow drifts.

Snow drifts are designed by the laws of nature.

*The former artifacts are understood to be intelligently caused and the latter are not. *

Are you implying that my pile of trash was not intelligently designed? :tsktsk:

 

[LukeS]

This is because the definition of design stems from examples of complex, intelligent, human craftsmanship understood over and against things which were not designed like piles of rubbish or snow drifts.

Snow drifts are designed by the laws of nature, and are you implying that my pile of trash was not intelligently designed? :tsktsk:

What I intend to convey is the argument from design, in its premises, used the term “designed”. Now, the common sense, ordinary understanding of designed things has been artifacts which were seen as something special, opposed to natural things. In proving them not to be so special arter all, the common sense understanding of the specialness of artifacts has been proven invalid. So, the premise “only a human like or intelligent agent could cause such complexity” has been called into question, because the original dichotomy relating to mechanical complexity (artifact complex, nature simple) has proven false.

Thus the design argument is ‘deconstructed’. For, is we had originally understood nature’s complexity, we would not have made the initial judjement that only a intelligent being could produce items of mechanical complexity.

“For thus says the LORD, the creator of the heavens, who is God, the designer and maker of the earth who established it, not creating it to be a waste, but designing it to be lived in.” Isaiah 45:18

I am humbled by that quote, but this is the philosphy and not the theology forum.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Some say that Occam’s Razor inclines against the hypothesis that God exists. Of these, some believe in God anyway and others don’t for whatever reasons.

Occam’s Razor is that one should prefer the theory that makes the least assumptions all other things being equal.

For our discussion, let’s grant that all other things are equal and that an atheistic theory of the world explains as much and as well as a theistic theory of the world. Still, Occam’s Razor does not incline against the God hypothesis. Here’s why.

Let’s suppose there is a successful theory of everything. One might think amending that theory to include God would be against Occam’s Razor. However, even with a successful theory of everything, we have no explanation as to what accounts for why the laws and/or initial conditions of physics were this way and not some other way. We have no explanation for example of why there is something rather than just nothing. The atheistic theory can tackle this by saying that the way things happen to be need no explaining and just are – that the universe or the laws behind it are the ultimate mystery, not a god. But, in doing so, the theory has added another assumption – namely that the universe is the ultimate mystery that needs no explaining – so compared to a theory that assumes that there is some other ultimate mystery, they both fare exactly the same under Occam’s Razor.

Another way for the atheistic theory to tackle this is to instead say that everything that is possible exists, somewhat similar to a Leibnizian principle of plenitude without its value laden hiearchy. An MIT theorist has gone this route, identifying the universe with mathematics and saying that anything mathematically possible exists. But in going this route they have added assumptions – namely the assumption that everything possible exists and the assumption that the fact that everything possible exists needs no explanining but is part of an ultimate mystery.

There may be good arguments against the God hypothesis, but Occam’s Razor is not one of them.

even if we had a grand unified theory, it still wouldn’t say anything about the origins of the universe.

because no physical object can create itself, and science only deals with empirically observable (physical ) phenomenon, there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe.

as to the idea that all things exist, that would require an infinite universe, something we know doesnt exist, from observation. nice philosophical idea, completely shredded by the weakness of its assumptions.

 

[Drawmack]

Yet you are talking about strong atheists (or “positive atheists”) who believe in no god. Atheism (the other and probably original version) is simply a lack of belief in God. So, agnostics are not a third party. They either believe or lack belief (are atheist or theist). So, the old issue of economty is not really resolved by agnosticism after all.

If someone says that God does not exist would you approach this person the same way as someone who says it is impossible to know if God exists?

If you answer yes, then you need to do a little work on your apologetics. If you answer no then you admit that these two groups need to be viewed separately, hence the development of the words atheist and agnostic.

 

[LukeS]

If someone says that God does not exist would you approach this person the same way as someone who says it is impossible to know if God exists?

If you answer yes, then you need to do a little work on your apologetics. If you answer no then you admit that these two groups need to be viewed separately, hence the development of the words atheist and agnostic.

In my view, an agnostic either believes in God or he doesn’t (the lack of knowledge on the issue doesn’t really affect the fact that he must either believe or not - there is no third way). Therefore s/he is either a theist (believer) or atheist (non-believer).

So there are agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists.
And there are gnostic theists, and gnostic atheists.

The former group both claim ignorance on the issue of Gods existence, wheras the latter claim knowledge. But not all atheists say that there is no God, some simply lack belief in God, which is a different matter.

Anyhow, admittedly, “agnostic” is sometimes used as if it refers to an inbetween state of neither belief or non-belief, but I think that is philosophically wrong. One has either to believe or not, according to the Law of the Excluded MIddle (“either a or non-a”).

So, in dealing with a person who believes it is impossible to know if God exists, it would still be pertinent to ask him or her if they believed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LukeS
*
I am humbled by that quote, but this is the philosphy and not the theology forum. *

Are you humbled by this quote too, not by a theologian but by a philosopher?

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

How would you see this as distinguished from Isaiah? Are you saying there can be no intersection of religion, science, and philosophy?

 

[Drawmack]

In my view, an agnostic either believes in God or he doesn’t (the lack of knowledge on the issue doesn’t really affect the fact that he must either believe or not - there is no third way). Therefore s/he is either a theist (believer) or atheist (non-believer).

So there are agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists.
And there are gnostic theists, and gnostic atheists.

The former group both claim ignorance on the issue of Gods existence, wheras the latter claim knowledge. But not all atheists say that there is no God, some simply lack belief in God, which is a different matter.

Anyhow, admittedly, “agnostic” is sometimes used as if it refers to an inbetween state of neither belief or non-belief, but I think that is philosophically wrong. One has either to believe or not, according to the Law of the Excluded MIddle (“either a or non-a”).

So, in dealing with a person who believes it is impossible to know if God exists, it would still be pertinent to ask him or her if they believed.

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. There are people who really have no opinion on the existence of God. They usually respond, “I don’t care.” These people exist. You can use any kind of philosophy you’d like to say they don’t but that is simply ignoring reality.

 

[fosio]

Occam believed in God but the fact he did doesn’t mean we can’t use Occam’s Razor to argue against belief in God anymore than the fact that Bertrand Russel didn’t believe in God means that can’t use Russel’s Paradox to argue for belief in God.

I think seeing persons as no different than other physical things doesn’t work. The universe must have some kind of personal orientation. I don’t think that neccessitates theism though and I don’t think belief in a personal creator implies theism. One could believe this universe was created by an advanced civilization (black holes are theorized to be possible a way to create a baby alternate universe) without believing that the scientists who did it were deities.

Faith is a matter of choice. I admit that there are solid arguments for God’s existence but my choice to believe need not be based solely on truth. I believe in God because doing so is beautiful and my heart is drawn to it. Your heart being drawn to it is as good a reason as your mind being drawn to it.

“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

I presented the version of Occam’s Razor articulated by the mathematician in Numb3rs which is probably a source even worse than wikipedia in your eyes

 

[tonyrey]

I think seeing persons as no different than other physical things doesn’t work. The universe must have some kind of personal orientation.

 

[Shike]

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. There are people who really have no opinion on the existence of God. They usually respond, “I don’t care.” These people exist. You can use any kind of philosophy you’d like to say they don’t but that is simply ignoring reality.

I agree with the above poster. Epistemically, there are 3 positions a person can take given a proposition p: I believe that p, I disbelieve that p, and no stance on p (It could be argued that suspending judgment and no judgment performed should not be lumped together–but I will keep them together).

Take for instance someone who has never been exposed to the proposition that God exists. The person obviously doesn’t believe (explicitly) in God’s existence; according to your nomenclature, you’d (LukeS) categorize this with disbelief. BUT, it is apparent that they do not disbelieve either, how could they. The only option is that there must be a third category of no stance taken. In this case it is trivially true that no stance is taken, but as the quote above states, there are also examples of people who are indifferent or who are confused, etc. This, however, is all epistemically speaking.

Now with regards to more concrete actions and how a person lives out his life there are only 2 outcomes, that of living your life for God and that of not. It would seem likely that suspending judgment on God’s existence and disbelieving his existence would garner similar results, at least more similar to each other than any of them compared to believing in God’s existence (one would hope).

peace,
Michael

 

[LukeS]

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. There are people who really have no opinion on the existence of God. They usually respond, “I don’t care.” These people exist. You can use any kind of philosophy you’d like to say they don’t but that is simply ignoring reality.

If they have no opinion then they are atheists. Then have no belief in god. They are non-theists.
This does not mean that they actively deny the existence of God, just that they “lack belief”.

Consider the analogy. There are people whop believed in the cominig of Jesus in the year 1000 (millenarians) and those who did not (let’s call them amillenarians). Those who just ‘didn’t care one way or the other’, or rather had no opinion, fell into the latter group. For having no opinion, they certainly were not millenarians, and the logical division m or non-m exhausts all the possibilities.

Look, one is either a theist or not a theist. Just like a stone is either marble or not marble. Being not theist (“atheist”) covers all the non-theistic possibilities, just like non-marble covers all the possibilities other than marble (like slate, granite etc).So, if you just dont’t care, well its likely that you don’t believe, so you’re an “apatheistic atheist”.

Ask these people

There are people who really have no opinion on the existence of God. They usually respond, “I don’t care.” These people exist

do you have any theistic beliefs? If they don’t they you know which class they belong to.

 

[LukeS]

Take for instance someone who has never been exposed to the proposition that God exists. The person obviously doesn’t believe (explicitly) in God’s existence; according to your nomenclature, you’d (LukeS) categorize this with disbelief. BUT, it is apparent that they do not disbelieve either, how could they. The only option is that there must be a third category of no stance taken. In this case it is trivially true that no stance is taken, but as the quote above states, there are also examples of people who are indifferent or who are confused, etc. This, however, is all epistemically speaking.

Michael

akhi, salam.

This issue is resolved by the differentiation between a “strong atheist” and a “weak atheist”.
SAs believe that there is no God, they actually deny the existence.
WAs do not deny Go’s existence, but they do not believe in God either.

Atheism means that which is not theism. You rightly point out that there can be other than people who deny the existence of God (saying “there is none”), but because these other people are not theists, they are by implication atheists. Weak atheists. See wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Agnosticism and gnosticism are epistemic attitudes (relating to knowledge). Theism and atheism are doxastic attitudes (relating to belief). A claim of knowledge implies a claim of belief, but not vice versa.

 

[MindOverMatter]

nice philosophical idea, completely shredded by the weakness of its assumptions.

Just tell him that in order for there to be possibilities, there has to be that which makes all things possible, and explains itself. There has to be a ground that gives birth to possibilities.

Simply saying that all things that are possible exist, is not an arguement.

 

[Drawmack]

akhi, salam.

This issue is resolved by the differentiation between a “strong atheist” and a “weak atheist”.
Sas believe that there is no god, they actually deny the existence.
Was do not deny go’s existence, but they do not believe in god either.

Atheism means that which is not theism. You rightly point out that there can be other than people who deny the existence of god (saying “there is none”), but because these other people are not theists, they are by implication atheists. Weak atheists. See wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/weak_and_strong_atheism

agnosticism and gnosticism are epistemic attitudes (relating to knowledge). Theism and atheism are doxastic attitudes (relating to belief). A claim of knowledge implies a claim of belief, but not vice versa.

stop using wikipedia as a reference!!!

 

[Shike]

Agnosticism and gnosticism are epistemic attitudes (relating to knowledge). Theism and atheism are doxastic attitudes (relating to belief). A claim of knowledge implies a claim of belief, but not vice versa.

How can your definition of Atheism (the negation of theism) be considered a doxastic attitude relating to belief, in certain cases. Not being exposed to a proposition does not relate to belief, but it is included in your Atheism def.

I think that those who go through the trouble to call themselves Atheists really have a positive belief that God doesn’t exist. This “default state” (no stance) that is often trumpeted is in itself a soft agnosticism, basically stating that one doesn’t know if God exists (nothing more). And those who go through so much trouble to call themselves atheists with this “new” definition really are agnostic (of the I don’t know variety) or are atheist in the true sense trying to give a natural primacy to their views.

So basically, I agree with your word-smithing about what theism and a-theism should tell us. But I disagree both in including the neutral position in atheism, and on a practical level, thinking that atheism is a positive belief in practice.

peace,
Michael

 

[fosio]

Exactly.
Monotheism is prescribed by Occam’s Razor.
Beauty is truth, and truth beauty…

Sorry about the typos I made. You may have picked up on it, but I meant to write that I admit that there are no solid arguments for God’s existence but that one’s reason for believing can legitimately be that it is beautiful to believe. You say that beauty and truth are the same but whether they are or not, in our own finite minds they are not the same. I also don’t think they are the same, at least not “truth” as you and I were discussing. Truth in the spiritual sense, the truth that sets man free, the truth by which to live your life, the truth that satisfies – that kind of truth is always beautiful (so that’s what Jesus means when he says he is the truth – truth as in meaning). But, truth as in something just being true – I think that can be ugly. For ex, it is a truth that the Holocaust happened but that truth is ugly, not beautiful. it is a truth that you have sinned, but that truth is ugly.

The way I understood Occam’s Razor was from Numb3rs and it made sense to me the way it was explained there as being about the number of assumptions not about the number of entities. After all, I think it is natural to think that an all beautiful God would want to create many and diverse things just like we see in our universe and may be in other universes and even just on our earth. So the version of Occam’s Razor about number of entities, I don’t think is true.

Personally, I don’t think God created this earth directly. I think the bible says the angels created it in God’s spirit (“Let us” refers to the heavenly court … and note how there’s no mention of angels being created in those seven days – that’s because they are the ones doing the creating). So if science finds out one day that this universe was created by some advanced civilization, I would think that maybe the angels are this advanced civilization and that the bible used the term angels which just means messenger without elaborating since doing so would confuse us.

Just as we should have faith in a friend even when it seems the friend has let us down, we should have faith in God no matter what the evidence. It’s a choice and like all choices it comes down to the human heart more than the mind.

The way I see it is … you could say that beauty is as much a principle of the universe as truth is and so if something is beautiful, that’s as likely to be in tune with the universe as if it is true. So even if there is no evidence that something is true, if it is beautiful, it is likely to be in tune with the universe and that’s enough to accept it as true. And I think it’s important not only to accept God’s existence as true but also to accept it as beautiful, Our minds should be oriented toward beauty just as much as they are oriented toward truth as with our hearts and flesh.

 

[tonyrey]

For ex, it is a truth that the Holocaust happened but that truth is ugly, not beautiful. it is a truth that you have sinned, but that truth is ugly.

Many particular truths are ugly but **truth **is beautiful.

So the version of Occam’s Razor about number of entities, I don’t think is true.

If you believe in one God it must be true.

The way I see it is … you could say that beauty is as much a principle of the universe as truth is and so if something is beautiful, that’s as likely to be in tune with the universe as if it is true.

If truth and beauty are both principles of the universe it is more economical to regard them as aspects of God’s perfection. Similarly love is goodness and goodness inspires love. Love creates beauty and beauty inspires love.

And I think it’s important not only to accept God’s existence as true but also to accept it as beautiful, Our minds should be oriented toward beauty just as much as they are oriented toward truth as with our hearts and flesh.

Precisely. We should also be oriented toward goodness, freedom and love because they all converge in God, the Creator and Supreme Being.

 

[Dameedna]

Ultimately, I think making a statment that the Universe simply exists, or that God simply exists are one and the same in terms of Occam’s Razor.

But beyond existance itself, I think it applies and usually ends up on the side of science and natural explanations, not God-explanations.

The only thing truly amazing to me, is that anything exists at all.

Religion…well, it’s existance and even it’s theology and the beliefs about God’s nature I think can be explained naturally. IE…why humans came up with the God hypothesis that they did and the type of God that they believed in.

But existance? It’s as much of a mystery as God would be a mystery(if God exists)

 

[Shike]

Religion…well, it’s existance and even it’s theology and the beliefs about God’s nature I think can be explained naturally. IE…why humans came up with the God hypothesis that they did and the type of God that they believed in.

Regardless of how religion (sometimes a euphemism for Christianity) came to be, there is a much more important and deeper question that must be answered… is the content of their claims true? You can come up with the most intricate explanation of why the human mind would tend to think that there is a God… but that says nothing absolute about the existence of God.

peace,
Michael