Agnosticism, Atheism, Bible Study, Christianity, Faith, God, Religion, Truth, Uncategorized

Some Thoughts on Occam’s Razor

Nate

There’s been a really interesting discussion over on Howie’s blog for the past few weeks. It was really at this comment that Howie started me thinking along the lines that led to this post. He said:

I personally think there have been plausible naturalistic explanations for how belief in creator gods developed in human minds. While it could definitely be true that there really are creator gods that caused this evolutionary development to occur that doesn’t mean that creator gods is the correct explanation. If we can agree that we do have plausible naturalistic explanations (and obviously people argue whether or not that’s true) then that’s where I feel Occam’s razor could have a valid application. You know from other conversations that I do believe Occam’s razor is really just a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, and that’s where I think I struggle to figure out exactly where I stand on the whole thing.

I think Howie’s right. Occam’s razor is a great guideline, but there’s no guarantee that it’s always right. Sometimes the simplest explanation is not the right one.

But despite the lack of a guarantee, I think there’s another angle to this when it comes to some religions. I’d like to come at this point in a round about manner, so let’s begin with an example. Long ago, most people believed the earth was flat. And this wasn’t just based on a whim, they had actual justification for that belief. If the earth wasn’t flat, then anything on the sides or the bottom would slip off, right? Any child could understand that. They were, of course, completely wrong about that belief, but it’s very easy to understand why they would have held it. Their belief was based on evidence — misunderstood evidence, granted, but evidence nonetheless. It’s easy to forgive their misunderstanding. In fact, most people would probably say there’s nothing to forgive.

When it comes to the existence of God, I think we’re in a similar position. It’s possible that a God or Gods set everything into motion that led us to where we are today, and for a very long time, that was the prevailing explanation for existence. But today, many of us no longer feel that deities offer the best explanation for why we’re here. There’s no clear evidence of the divine at work in our world today. Examples of evil and suffering are easy to find. And science has helped us find natural explanations for how the universe and its forms of life operate. Not all questions have been answered, but many of us feel that Occam’s razor is great justification for believing that those remaining questions will also have natural explanations.

And that brings me to my main point. Even if we’re wrong, those of us who are atheists are justified in not believing in gods. That doesn’t mean we’re right. However, while Occam’s razor isn’t a law that proves we’re right, it gives much more strength to our position when talking about certain kinds of gods. This isn’t a situation in which it could easily go either way — Occam’s razor actually stacks the deck strongly in our favor.

Consider Christianity: most versions of it teach that God is going to judge humanity for its sinful nature, and the only way to escape this judgment is to put faith in God and his son Jesus Christ. We’re also taught that this god is righteous and merciful — he is a wholly good god who can not do evil, and he loves us enough (even while we were sinners!) to sacrifice his only son. But such a god doesn’t fit a reality where one can be justified in believing that there is no god. If atheism is justified, it wouldn’t be right to punish someone for being an atheist, just as it wouldn’t be right to punish someone who lived 4,000 years ago for believing that the earth is flat.

Ryan Bell, the former 7th Day Adventist pastor who famously decided to try atheism for a year, recently wrote something similar:

For the sake of argument, let’s say, “God did it.” God kicked off the entire process by igniting the Big Bang. This is essentially the God of deism—a God who is not involved in the affairs of our world, and has not been since he got the whole thing started. So, to come back to my first question on the first day of the year, “What difference does that God make?” I’m not inspired to worship that God. That God cannot possibly be described by the Bible and Jesus was incorrect in his understanding of that God, because that God has been absent for 13+ billion years. Frankly, I’m surprised that so many Christians even make these cosmological arguments. They don’t get us any closer to the Bible or Christianity.

If we try to cover that gap and posit a God who not only caused the Big Bang but is involved in the world, we run into other problems—mostly ethical problems. Why is God so silent and inert? Why is God such a bad communicator? Why are people killing each other to defend their version of God? And why does it seem so much like we are evolving as a species and editing our view of God as we go along?
— link

Occam’s razor works for the unbeliever in at least two ways: First, justified atheism makes it very hard to believe in a god who would punish unbelievers. Secondly, the only kind of god we’re left with probably doesn’t matter a great deal. As Bell says, what difference does he make? It’s similar to the Delos McKown quote, “the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”

I think that Occam’s razor provides very good justification for atheism, but it’s not a guarantee — sometimes the simplest explanation isn’t the right one. But most religions define their god(s) in such a way that Occam’s razor deals them a critical blow. It’s their own assertions that do them in. At least, that’s how I see it — what do you think?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

79 thoughts on “Some Thoughts on Occam’s Razor”

  1. A watch is made with intent by skilled people, people can observe this intent

    A mountain or a waterfall forms and changes over long periods of time, with the interaction of pressure and interaction with its environment.

    If a waterfall of mountain is formed with an grand intent, I find that intent difficult to observe.

    It is taken upon faith that there is a purpose for that waterfall, and that purpose is not only a by-product that is part of a process that certain animals benefit from. i.e shelter, water, inspiration, bathing ect.

    But the watch analogy doesn’t seem to fit when people are really intending to refer to natural phenomenon like mountains and waterfalls, and the life that interacts and forms on and in them.,

    We are then talking about different things I think

    Like

  2. Laurie,

    I have another question,

    if you don’t follow or agree with the writings of Saint Paul, what in your mind makes the parts you do consider, to be more valid?

    Hope your day is going well 🙂

    Like

  3. Nate,

    I wouldn’t even say the universe is self replicating.

    Using the same example, a mountain can’t replicate itself, but forms and changes based on the environmental pressures placed upon it (heat, water, sand, wind)

    as well as the other processes that interact with and on it (vegetation, trees, animals). All these interactions develop and adapt to create what people categorise as changing “systems” of an environment.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394887/mountain-ecosystem

    Like

  4. What I mean to say is that to me, things don’t seem to be so much self replicating as more reacting and interacting to the forces, processes and organisms around it over time

    which forms new “systems” or living adaptations that develop, until the environment doesn’t support such a system and its connections any more

    Then another develops out of it, and eventually becomes something entirely different.

    I know this is off topic, sorry, I just find it interesting 🙂

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/nature12218.html

    Like

  5. Thanks Ryan and Nate for pointing out the problems with the watch analogy. I should have picked a better word, perhaps “unknown thing”.

    UnkleE, I agree, if the watch is OBVIOUSLY designed then we could say it was designed no matter what the purpose was. As was pointed out, we know a watch is designed because we are familiar with the process of watchmaking and watchmakers.

    Back to the universe, not knowing whether or not it has a purpose, we are left with nothing but trying to figure out if it looks designed or not. In this instance none of us are familiar with any kind of universe-making process or universe-makers so this makes it more difficult.

    UnkleE, you said “Its core design is clear”. It is not so clear to me. Are you referring to the laws of nature? It would be nice if you would elaborate on this.

    Wouldn’t it be a mistake if we were to reason like this: “I think the universe has a purpose, XYZ, and therefore it appears to be designed”. Using Ryan’s example, it would be like saying “The purpose of clouds is to water my garden, therefore a cloud maker must exist.”

    Now, we have a pretty good idea of where clouds actually come from. We have a good idea of where stars come from and how planets form. There are other things we are not so sure of like where do dreams come from? Sometimes dreams are very different than what we would normally think of during waking hours. Could there be a purpose for them? A message? Should we then assume that there is a Sandman who creates our dreams for us? How do we know if the Sandman truly exists? Perhaps the Sandman, also known as Ole-Luk-Oie, revealed himself in a dream to Hans Christian Anderson who wrote this about him:

    There is nobody in the world who knows so many stories as Ole-Luk-Oie, or who can relate them so nicely. In the evening, while the children are seated at the table or in their little chairs, he comes up the stairs very softly, for he walks in his socks, then he opens the doors without the slightest noise, and throws a small quantity of very fine dust in their eyes, just enough to prevent them from keeping them open, and so they do not see him. Then he creeps behind them, and blows softly upon their necks, till their heads begin to droop. But Ole-Luk-Oie does not wish to hurt them, for he is very fond of children, and only wants them to be quiet that he may relate to them pretty stories, and they never are quiet until they are in bed and asleep. As soon as they are asleep, Ole-Luk-Oie seats himself upon the bed. He is nicely dressed; his coat is made of silken fabric; it is impossible to say of what color, for it changes from green to red, and from red to blue as he turns from side to side. Under each arm he carries an umbrella; one of them, with pictures on the inside, he spreads over the good children, and then they dream the most beautiful stories the whole night. But the other umbrella has no pictures, and this he holds over the naughty children so that they sleep heavily, and wake in the morning without having dreams at all. – from Hans Christian Andersen’s 1841 folk tale Ole Lukøje.

    There you have it! A simple explanation of where dreams come from. It may seem funny, but to me this story could be placed in the same category as Laurie’s story about YHWH, Lucifer and the Angels. Folklore, plain and simple, a common occurrence among all people groups to make up stories to try and explain phenomena.

    Like

  7. He’s not so bad when compared to the German version: “Der Sandmann”

    he threw sand in the eyes of children who wouldn’t sleep, with the result of those eyes falling out and being collected by the Sandman, who then takes the eyes to his iron nest on the Moon, and uses them to feed his children.

    But that was written by false prophets, not inspired by the true Sandman.

    Like

  8. Laurie,

    just a few more notes on the devil,

    – never understood why there are such a thing as “devil worshippers” out there. I’ve heard that many of them are actually atheists, but if they truly believe in a real devil, then from a biblical perspective (which is where the devil is described) why would a person actively and ritualistically side with a creature God has defeated, unless they are making up their own version of what they mean by devil?

    – In any case, why would someone idealise a creature that involves the personification of deception and false accusations? Doesn’t seem like that would lead to a better understanding of reality at all, just create confusion.

    But those are just side notes.

    I’ve also heard that the greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. Yet that statement didn’t come from the Bible, at least not as far as I have read, or stated directly in that way.

    Like

  9. Ugh, so many new comments! I have a hard time keeping up! Busy, busy, busy!😄

    I’m sure I will miss something, but remind me and I’ll get back to you tonight.

    The bible is a very small book, and so sometimes getting clear concise information is not really possible. So this is my opinion, and there is a lot of speculation.

    First question was about Ya withholding punishment, and the answer is yes. Hades, gehenna, and taratus are new testament words used for hell. In the Tanakh, the word is sheol and it simply means grave. A place of eternal torment is not based on the scriptures, but greek mythology. Paul is the only one who ” delivers people over to Satan for the tormenting of the flesh” in the bible. The lake of fire is something that happens at the end, and according to Malachi 4:3 the fire extinguishes and we tread on the ashes. Ya doesn’t preserve evil for eternity, his plan is for perfection and restoration.

    Ya doesn’t give Lucifer demons, but he convinced a third of the angels to follow him. The fallen angels are what we call demons.

    Lucifer did not know from the beginning, that he had already lost, and even now probably had some hope. The scriptures are considered spiritual, and to understand them requires spiritual discernment, which he doesn’t posses. Also, Ya opens and closes prophecy for different times. An example of this is the closed book in Daniel 12, and the same scene in revelation 10 with an open book. (Great prophecy for discussion)

    The short of it is that after the fall Lucifer was given dominion here, center stage, and all the universe is watching. In the end it will be clear that Ya is perfect in His love and mercy, and not a dictator that commands worship. He will remove sin, and we will forever remember what sin caused in this world.

    Just my opinion

    Like

  10. Oh my! A devil? Say it isn’t so … because it isn’t! There IS NO DEVIL/SATAN. The stories about the fallen angel are nothing but Christian fairy tales (much like Ole-Luk-Oie). I have done tons of research into the existence and history of this “evil one” and none of what people believe and/or are taught is correct. I truly don’t mean this as a “plug” but if anyone is interested, I go into extensive detail about “The Big Bad Guy” in my book.

    Sorry, Nate, for getting away from your post’s topic, but every time I come across such pure nonsense, I get riled.

    BTW, I totally agree with rung2 when he wrote: … we still know nothing about the soul’s immortality, nothing about any sort of afterlife, and should hold out no hope that we are special in any way. For some, this is probably a sad way of looking at life, but beyond belief in the bible, these are the facts..

    Like

  12. UnkleE,

    You wrote:

    Is God designed? Well, let’s consider the logic. Either something could have been different or it couldn’t (let’s call that ‘necessary’). If it could have been different, either it was designed or it wasn’t (we’ll call that random or chance). The majority of cosmologists say evidence is that the apparent design of the universe isn’t necessary or chance, so design is plausible. (They say our universe came from a multiverse, but we can apply the same logic to the multiverse.) But philosophers say that God, if he exists, is necessary – he couldn’t have been different. So I don’t think the parallel holds.

    Speaking about a multiverse is probably like speaking about deities. It is well beyond our grasp and we have little chance of understanding them or discerning whether they exist. But it’s fun, so I’ll indulge myself…

    Let’s define the Multiverse as a quantum soup of particles that interacts in such a way that universes (like ours) are spawned randomly for eternity. Now what’s to stop me from using the same trick that theists have done and say: “The Multiverse, if it exists, is necessary – it could not have been different.”?

    This is usually where theists pull out the “infinite regress” card and say ah-ha, you have a series of actions that go on and on with no ultimate cause. However, this fails for two reasons: 1. No one has proved that an infinite regress is not possible (it just hurts our heads to think about it is all). 2. The same case could be made against God. He has either done nothing (no thoughts or actions) for all eternity or he has an infinite regress of thoughts or actions. I don’t think theists would like to have a God who does nothing, so they too are stuck with an infinite regress dilemma. I don’t think it’s a dilemma, it’s just that infinity is something we have a hard time understanding.

    Let’s use Occam’s razor again so we can stay on topic. Of the two theories put forward we have one option with infinite actions (Multiverse) and one option with infinite thoughts and actions (God). The simpler of the two would be the Multiverse because it does not have the added complexity of thoughts. What does everyone else think?

    Like

  13. I don’t think I used the word Satan or devil. The first time the word Ha Satan appears in the Tanakh is in the story of balaam, and was actually talking about an angel. The words actually translate Ha (the) Satan (adversary) , if memory serves.

    Like

  14. Sorry to be off topic, butt Nan, do you not believe in angels because you don’t believe in the Tanakh, or because you don’t believe it is IN the Tanakh? I know you are not a believer, right?

    Like

  16. Whooooeee! Thanks for the apology, Laurie. I was beginning to feel like I was on your sh__ list. 😉

    No, you didn’t use the term devil or satan. Others did. Even so, to most people, Lucifer is satan (but that’s a story for another day). You’re absolutely correct about ha-satan. I think where Christians see “Satan” in the OT is in 1Chronicles 21:1, where the KJV says: “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” My understanding is ha-satan was in the original text and this is a translation “error.”

    No, I don’t believe in angels. I haven’t done any research on them except to say it’s my understanding they came into the Jewish belief through Zoroastrianism.

    Yes, you’re correct. I’m not a believer. If you haven’t already, please visit my blog to learn more about where I stand.

    Like

  17. “most religions define their god(s) in such a way that Occam’s razor deals them a critical blow.”

    I would most definitely agree with that statement but highlight the ‘most’. It particularly applies to the Abrahamic gods as polytheistic gods tend not to be all good or all powerful in every way. They also don’t tend to promise salvation etc, they may help or hinder depending on their mood and how you approached them.

    I would also tend to argue that if gods created the universe perfectly to their needs then they would not need to use anything other than its natural laws to influence the universe. Alternatively they may only actually interact using the imagination of those creatures capable of imagining. Why start a war when you can get a human to do it (not all polytheistic gods are even mainly good remember)? If they need to do miracles etc to influence the univeres its because they created it wrong. They would therefore be undetectable by us even assuming they did interact.

    Like

  19. Hi Dave,

    “UnkleE, you said “Its core design is clear”. It is not so clear to me. Are you referring to the laws of nature? It would be nice if you would elaborate on this.”

    Many of the cosmologists say it looks like it was designed – see here. Why do they say that? Because they think theoretical physics shows it could feasibly have been very different, and the odds are overwhelmingly that it “should” have been very different, and yet it isn’t. So I can take their word for it, or I can think they are wrong. But whatever choice we make, they are referring to the laws and the values of constants within those laws.

    “Now what’s to stop me from using the same trick that theists have done and say: “The Multiverse, if it exists, is necessary – it could not have been different.”?”

    Yes, you could say that, but I’d have trouble believing it. Few of the cosmologists or philosophers believe the universe is necessary. If we can believe in a multiverse by extrapolation out of our known universe, then I think we’d have to extrapolate similar physics – and that means time based. So if God is necessary and not time-based, then the two are not equivalent in the way you suggest.

    I think it remains true that any way we try to avoid the logic of the fine-tuning argument for God, we end up either in a contradiction or with a different form of fine-tuning. Of course others see it differently, but that’s how I see it. Thanks.

    Like

  20. unkleE, on your own blog , you go on to say this about these cosmologists, “All these conclusions are scientific, and don’t necessarily point to God. Several of these writers discuss the possibility of God being the cause of the fine-tuning, but as this isn’t a scientific question, none of them (that I am aware) draw strong conclusions about God’s existence or non-existence.”

    Like

  21. I find first-cause arguments interesting, but not of much value, ultimately. To me, the biggest problem is that we don’t know what the default “nothing” state of the universe/multiverse is/should have been. Naturally, we all find it remarkable that anything at all exists, but that’s based on our assumption that the most natural state is for nothing at all to exist. But how do we know that?

    Like

  22. It’s logic Nate. In the end, we either believe that everything contingent came from nothing (how?), or we believe that everything contingent came from something not contingent. Unlikely as God may be, coming from nothing is even more unlikely (IMO). I know you’re not going to agree, but I thought an answer should be given. 🙂

    Like

  23. But does it come from nothing? What if ‘nothing’ as we think of it is impossible? I’m not saying your wrong, I just don’t think we know enough about the parameters to say anything with much certainty.

    Like

  24. That’s right Nate, I also don’t think we know near enough to say anything regarding first cause with certainty. I’d also say that just like I’ve never run into non-contingent mechanistic things I’ve also never run into non-contingent minds. So just slapping the word “non-contingent” onto an idea just doesn’t do the work at solving the something from nothing problem. An intelligent mind that knows absolutely every fact there is to know within existence is nowhere near “nothing”, in fact to me that is even much more of a “something” than some non-contingent mechanistic things that then developed through natural laws into what we all experience today.

    Like

  25. Unlikely as God may be, coming from nothing is even more unlikely (IMO). I know you’re not going to agree, but I thought an answer should be given. 🙂

    Which god?

    Like

Leave a comment