Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The funny thing is that Occam (Ockham, William 'of') was a philosopher and theologian. And somehow he didn't see fit to take his own medicine. I wonder why?
1) Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now
2) http://www.iep.utm.edu/ockham/#H2
cloudyday2 said:The article seems to argue that atheists must get involved in the details of the theist's philosophical arguments for gods rather than brushing them aside as unnecessary additions to the scientific model of reality. I think it is the responsibility of the theists to show how their gods can improve the scientific model. Many of the questions that theists claim to answer with their gods are actually malformed questions.
It is funny how these gods become increasingly elusive and irrelevant as science advances. In the past, the gods were expected to bless us with rain in the proper season, good health, prosperity, etc. Now we expect nothing from our gods, but we continue to cling to them.
People are good at compartmentalizing beliefs.
If someone says, "THERE IS NO GOD," and you reply, "maybe not, but I doubt there is no God," they can't then say, "PROVE THERE IS A GOD."
If someone says, "THERE IS A GOD," and you reply, "maybe, but I'm not convinced there is one," they can't then say, "PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD."
If you make the claim, you back it up. Atheist or theist is irrelevant; it's the claimer that has the burden of proof.
Indeed. And what they choose to compartmentalize and to what degree, is driven by their personal psyche and psychological needs.
...as well as by way of inherent the philosophical constructs which come together in the mind and by which each individual thinks the world makes sense (or not). It's not just ALL ..... "needs" based.
The "needs" part, helps to drive what each individual can reconcile with themselves, to allow it to make sense.
yes, it helps. But "helping" and "causing" are not quite the same conceptual constructs, are they?
Thanks for the links, @2PhiloVoid
The article seems to argue that atheists must get involved in the details of the theist's philosophical arguments for gods rather than brushing them aside as unnecessary additions to the scientific model of reality. I think it is the responsibility of the theists to show how their gods can improve the scientific model. Many of the questions that theists claim to answer with their gods are actually malformed questions. For example, asking "how did the universe come into being?" is a natural common sense question, but it is a question formed from concepts that fall apart at the beginning of time. "Before" and "after" make no sense at the beginning of time. Likewise, "cause" makes no sense at the beginning of time.
It is funny how these gods become increasingly elusive and irrelevant as science advances. In the past, the gods were expected to bless us with rain in the proper season, good health, prosperity, etc. Now we expect nothing from our gods, but we continue to cling to them.
Taking into account the wide range of personal beliefs people hold and how tightly they hold onto these beliefs, even in the face of available evidence to the contrary, personal psychological need is the main driver in these people.
William Occam was born in the year 1285.
You do understand what they would have done to him if he took his argument to that conclusion right?
That he set aside an exception for "divine revelation" in his writings is clear, so that is either because he thought it deserved one or because they used to burn heretics alive at the time.
...so your saying so makes it so? I think it's actually one of those issues that is open to philosophical (and scientific) debate, rather than one that is clear cut as you seem to imply.
Sure. I understand. I've read the history. And you do understand that his Razor emerged out of considerations about philosophical contrasts between 'Nominalism' and 'Universalism,' right?
I don't see your point.
Feel free to expand it so that I can track it back to mine.
Every idea is open for philosophical debate.
Evidence based debates have to rely on evidence to demonstrate points.
...so your saying so makes it so? I think it's actually one of those issues that is open to philosophical (and scientific) debate, rather than one that is clear cut as you seem to imply.
Yes, I agree. But, even evidence is open to the mediation of perception and interpretation.
So, it seems to me that if Ockham wasn't using his own razor to cut out religious beliefs, but rather to razor away one philosophical concept as it contrast with another, then it is a bit incongruous for us to apply it in a way that is not befitting Ockham's intentions.
Furthermore, since the basic idea of parsimony did not really originate with Ockham, and the way we use today doesn't truly reflect Ockham's thinking, but rather Aristotle's, then we seem to confuse the reasoning and applications involved and distort the connotations inherent in the uses we choose to apply parsimony.
Okham was a skeptic. That's the point, he was skeptical in one specific way and later Bertrand Russell extrapolated upon this with some decent effect.
It doesn't matter what he intended his idea to be used, it can be used wherever it is useful.
If it is useful to judge the difference between two specific ideas, it may be useful at judging others in principle.
Limiting ourselves for no other reason than the original authors intentions needs to be justified based upon whether or not the idea can appropriately apply elsewhere.
Ockham was copying the earlier stuff as well as was Russell.
That they came to differn't conclusions is interesting but in no way relevant to how it might be used today by us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?