Why atheists need to stop using Occam's Razor

[KCfromNC]

Science cannot observe my "I think therefore I am".

Is this a claim of a technological limitation or an absolute statement of impossibility? If it's the latter, I think we'll need to see some proof.

 

[vortigen84]

Science cannot observe my "I think therefore I am". It cannot observe Christ within me either. Have you heard of Wilhelm Dilthey?

Wikipedia here: "He suggested that all human experience divides naturally into two parts: that of the surrounding natural world, in which "objective necessity" rules, and that of inner experience, characterized by "sovereignty of the will, responsibility for actions, a capacity to subject everything to thinking and to resist everything within the fortress of freedom of his/her own person"."

Mr Dilthey sounds like a right Kant, no offense.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Nothing has to prove it's existence to me. It's not like I'm walking around the streets shouting "Give me the evidence of your existence, flying, invisible, pink unicorn!" But until there is some evidence for the existence of something, what possible reason is there to assume it exists?

Several months ago I had a similar conversation with a creationist. I asked him that IF humans did evolve from apes, then what would an ape-human transitional look like? He replied, quite sensibly, that it would probably have a combination of ape and human features.

But then be backtracked straight out of his argument. He said just because he had an idea of what an ape-man would look like doesn't mean that ape-men actually existed. I tried to point out that if the evidenc fits your idea, then your idea was probably right - but unfortunately this didn't help. He said that a mere description cannot be used to support any so-called transitional fossils.

He was wrong of course, and I suspect you're making the same mistake he did. We need to at least have an idea of what something might be like before we can go looking for it, otherwise how do we know what to look for?

Even science can't avoid making assumptions. Look at the Higgs particle - it was predicted over 50 years ago and they spent billions building the Hadron Collider, simply to test whether or not it existed. If we simply waited for everything to prove itself to us then science would grind to a halt.

I disagree. There is definitely nothing lazy about asking for evidence.

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that it's lazy to ask for evidence. I meant that the way atheists speak of the supernatural is lazy: "If God exists then He is part of the material world. If He is not part of the material world then He does not exist."

It's one thing not to believe in the supernatural if we think there is not evidence for it - that's skepticism. But it's quite another not to be able to even conceive of the supernatural. That is intellectual laziness.

There's no point atheists asking for evidence for the supernatural because, as far as many of them are concerned, it's not that the supernatural doesn't exist - it's that the supernatural can't exist. They're no different from creationists who ask for transitional fossils.

Well, not so much that without the inventor the invention could not work, as that if there was an inventor, we should see certain patterns in nature that we do not see.

Or that we should indeed see pretty inexplainable things still happening.

Even if we did see inexplicable P) things happening, would we take it ask evidence of the supernatural ... or would we claim it was simply a natural event that we have yet to understand?

Sorry I keep repeating myself - I know that can be rather annoying.

 

[DaneaFL]

Notedstrangeperson, you are obviously quite intelligent. You are one of those Christians that accepts science, reason, and evidence, but you compartmentalize your religious beliefs and don't subject them to the same standards that you apply to everything else in your life.

I find this trend in many Christians. The less intelligent ones just yell really loudly like the creationists you mentioned... but the smart Christians, they are really good at rationalizing their beliefs even if those beliefs don't really have any substance.

The simple fact is that the universe acts exactly the same as if there was no God so until you can prove otherwise, we atheists are just going to lump Yahweh in the same category as Zeus, Allah, and Vishnu.

 

[driewerf]

Atheists frequently use Occam's Razor to try and disprove the existance of God ...

Actually, no. I think most atheists use Occam's razor to debunk nonsense arguments from (christian) aplogetists.

And even if we ignore the fact they don't see the irony in using an idea thought up by a 14th century monk to promote their atheism, judging by the quotes above they obviously don't know what they're talking about.

Are we allowed to use the Big bang theory<, you know, developped by a catholic priest? Are we allowed to accept the geocentric model, you know, developped by Copergnic, a monk? Are we allowed to study genetics, you know, started by Mendel, another monk? Or are all these sciences forbidden, bewause a christian touched the matter?

 

[Loudmouth]

In reality, Christians use the Razor as much as Atheists do. When we wake up in the morning and find snow on the ground we do not ponder the possibility that Leprechauns planted all of the snow on the ground to exactly mimic a natural occurence of snowfall. When we press on the brake pedal in our car we do not assume that the brake system comletely vanished and fairies took over the stopping of the car, only to have the brake system magcially poof back into existence when we actually looked at it.

Atheists are just applying the same logic to other areas of reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's one thing not to believe in the supernatural if we think there is not evidence for it - that's skepticism. But it's quite another not to be able to even conceive of the supernatural. That is intellectual laziness.

The current usage of the term "supernatural" is an attempt to protect beliefs from skepticism. When someone claims that something is supernatural what they are attempting to do is create an excuse for why they don't have to supply evidence. The term "supernatural" is the intellectually lazy term.

Historically, this was not the case. The supernatural was seen as something very real and very tangible in centuries past. Plagues were seen as the direct hand of God, as one example. It wasn't until the discovery of science that the term supernatural took on a new life. Now it is used as a God-of-the-Gaps.

There's no point atheists asking for evidence for the supernatural because, as far as many of them are concerned, it's not that the supernatural doesn't exist - it's that the supernatural can't exist. They're no different from creationists who ask for transitional fossils.

I would claim just the opposite. The supernatural was tested for, and it came up lacking. Instead, we found natural mechanisms for phenomena that was previously claimed to be the product of the supernatural. Now the term is used as an excuse for not having evidence.

Even if we did see inexplicable P) things happening, would we take it ask evidence of the supernatural ... or would we claim it was simply a natural event that we have yet to understand?

When you see David Copperfield make someone levitate what do you think is happening? Do you think there is a natural explanation?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Notedstrangeperson, you are obviously quite intelligent. You are one of those Christians that accepts science, reason, and evidence, but you compartmentalize your religious beliefs and don't subject them to the same standards that you apply to everything else in your life.

Thanks for the compliment, but you're wrong when you say that Christians don't subject their religion to the same level of scrutiny. Most of the early Christian arguments on the existance of God are based on the reason.

For example, Saint Augustine knew that God was eternal. He also knew that if the universe had a begining. So what was God doing before He created the universe? Augustine concluded that if God created everything then he also created time. Before the universe came to be, time did not exist.

Augstine didn't say "God told me!" or "The Bible says so!" to back up his argument. He didn't argue that faith is free from scrutiny either (he was one of the first people to question the accuracy of Genesis). He used logic.

In reality, Christians use the Razor as much as Atheists do.

Most of the time when I see Christians use Occam's Razor, they're using it as an argument against evolution - which is actually slightly closer to Occam's original argument that there are limits to how much science can tell us.

Slightly closer. The idea that Occam's Razor disproves evolution is wrong because they're ignoring all the evidence favouring evolution.

Historically, this was not the case. The supernatural was seen as something very real and very tangible in centuries past. Plagues were seen as the direct hand of God, as one example. It wasn't until the discovery of science that the term supernatural took on a new life.

(The "discovery" of science?) Modern science dates back to the 13th and 14th century when the plague was sweeping through Europe. People such as Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste helped develop the scientific method. And of course, Willian of Ockham lived in the 13-14th century.

I would claim just the opposite. The supernatural was tested for, and it came up lacking. Instead, we found natural mechanisms for phenomena that was previously claimed to be the product of the supernatural.

I think you've missed my point too. I'm not trying to prove the supernatural exists. Christians shouldn't say "I can't explain it, so it must be supernatural". But at the same time atheists shouldn' say "There is no evidence for the supernatural" if they can't think of anything which which would count as evidence.

Are we allowed to use the Big bang theory<, you know, developped by a catholic priest? Are we allowed to accept the geocentric model, you know, developped by Copergnic, a monk? Are we allowed to study genetics, you know, started by Mendel, another monk? Or are all these sciences forbidden, bewause a christian touched the matter?

The problem isn't that atheists are using an idea developed by a Christian - the problem is that atheists are using an idea developed by a Christian against God. Why would a monk actively argue against God's existance?

 

[Loudmouth]

Most of the time when I see Christians use Occam's Razor, they're using it as an argument against evolution - which is actually slightly closer to Occam's original argument that there are limits to how much science can tell us.

If that is the only time then you are missing a lot. They use it almost the entire day, and for things that are quite mundane. I cited some examples earlier. When you see a piece of dog poo on the sidewalk do you assume it was put their by a dog or by Loki who was trying to make it look like a dog left it? When Christians are on a jury, do they entertain the idea that Leprechauns planted the fingprint and DNA evidence at the crime scene to make the defendant look guilty, or do they ignore supernatural explanations? When you see David Copperfield perform human levitation, do you think it is a supernatural act or do you assume that there is a natural explanation?

(The "discovery" of science?) Modern science dates back to the 13th and 14th century when the plague was sweeping through Europe. People such as Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste helped develop the scientific method. And of course, Willian of Ockham lived in the 13-14th century.

That was hardly the first plague to hit human kind. Disease was thought to be the tangible result of the supernatural interacting with nature at one point in history. Many things were. Lightning was tangible evidence of Zeus, as another example. Time after time, we kept finding natural mechanisms, not supernatural ones. Supernaturalism has been a complete failure as a way of explaining what goes on in reality.

I think you've missed my point too. I'm not trying to prove the supernatural exists. Christians shouldn't say "I can't explain it, so it must be supernatural". But at the same time atheists shouldn' say "There is no evidence for the supernatural" if they can't think of anything which which would count as evidence.

A thousand foot Zeus parting the clouds and running across the countryside would certainly be all the evidence I needed.

The problem isn't that atheists are using an idea developed by a Christian - the problem is that atheists are using an idea developed by a Christian against God. Why would a monk actively argue against God's existance?

Why is that a problem? If the sauce is good for the goose . . .

 

[Smidlee]

God is supernatural because he is not subject to the natural laws He created. Why would He be?

So you believe God is supernatural? I see Him totally separated from creation thus unnatural; Spirit. (anything not subject to nature is above natural including supernatural) Man is a good example of supernatural since our physical bodies obey the laws of physics yet there is more to man that can be explain totally by natural laws.

 

[NailsII]

Supernaturalistic evidence, obviously.

Which is......

According to virtually every religion that humans have ever thought of, supernatural events happen by the will of gods and are observed by humans.
People look for miracles, not just improbable events but a temporary intervention in the laws of nature. As these effect the natural world, they must be measurable if and when they occur.

None that Science or any less formal study of nature need worry about.

But science can look for evidence of miracles.
If prayer really does work, then you should be able to set up a controlled study and show that people who are prayed for are, in some small, measurable way, better off than those who are not prayed for.
You could measure heath, prosperity - whatever.
Do you think they will ever find such a link?

That would be correct, except then they would be naturalistic evidence, which we have agreed they can't be. So the obvious conclusion is that they don't influence natural events.

So, something that cannot be observed or measured but we must accept it as a possibiblty - based upon what reasoning?

I think that the obvious conclusion is that the supernatural and the non-existant are very difficult to tell apart.

There are two possible assumptions concerning the supernatural. Choosing either one is an unecessary assumption which should by Occam's razor be dropped as superfluous.

Assumption 1: The supernatural exists.
Assumption 2: The supernatural does not exist.

Most scientists correctly avoid making the first assumption. But many not in their experiments or the description of the objective outcomes of those experiments, but in their discussion and interpretation of those results make statements that imply they have accepted assumption 2. That is wrong. The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is irrelevant to science, because the supernatural is irrelevant to science.

Superntural is not irrelevant to science, because it could alter experiments and observations in any number of ways.
For example, if an egg being fertilised by a sperm was a supernatural occurance, we wouldn't be able to explain exactly how it happens - because there would be a variable beyond our comprehension.

Bottom line - there is no evidence for the superntaural - which we agree on - so is there any good reason to suppose that it does exists?

It goes back to NailsII's argument that we need to supernatural to prove the existance of God, but this seems like fallacious reasoning. We're basically arguing that in order to prove that an invention has a creator, the creator would need to prove that his invention can't work without him ... which of course wouldn't make him much of a creator.

Since we're talking about science and religion, this would mean that in order to prove that God and the supernatural exist, God would have to a) intervene constantly and b) only be able to intervene through supernatural means.

Some Ash'arite philosophers (like Al-Ghazali) actually believed this, and it was one of the reasons their understanding of science began to break down.

We're not discussing a creator though, we are talking about a god.
If a god exists then there should be some evidence for his/her existance.
Gods seem to understand this, so they interact with a few humans in order to have a story written down - but can they not see the futility of this course of action, as it then becomes possible for people to make stories up and there is no way to differentiate between them.
I dare say that there must be at least one religion which you consider to be made up, so which one and why?

Everyone grants presumptions.

But we don't want to be presumptious, we want to know the truth.

 

[HitchSlap]

(Sorry about the huge post)

Atheists frequently use Occam's Razor to try and disprove the existance of God ...

Me thinks thou protesteth too much. I'm not in the position of having to disprove the "existance"[SIC] of anything, but the burden of proof is incumbent upon on you to objectively demonstrate your claim, that a god exists, is true. I will always accept the null hypothesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you believe God is supernatural? I see Him totally separated from creation thus unnatural; Spirit. (anything not subject to nature is above natural including supernatural)

At one time God supposedly resided in the Holy of Holies, visited plagues upon Egypt, led people around by a pillar of fire or smoke, and rained food down from the heavens. God even sent a chariot down to get Elijah and transport him into Heaven. It would seem to me that God was out and about doing things in nature according to the Bible stories.

Man is a good example of supernatural since our physical bodies obey the laws of physics yet there is more to man that can be explain totally by natural laws.

Once again, someone is using an argument from ignorance to argue for the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Tomk80]

The problem isn't that atheists are using an idea developed by a Christian - the problem is that atheists are using an idea developed by a Christian against God. Why would a monk actively argue against God's existance?

Who cares? He came up with a line of reasoning, but didn't follow it to it's logical conclusion. Why should his incapacity to follow his own reasoning through prevent us from following it to it's actual logical conclusion.

Einstein rejected the use of a cosmological constant in general relativity. He was wrong. Others have later entered the cosmological constant in general relativity to make it work. The fact that Einstein disagreed with it doesn't make the slightest smidgen of a difference.

Edited to add: I just cannot figure out why you think it matters that the line of reasoning occam originally used as a proof of God is now used by atheists as a reason to not accept the existence of god(s). I think it is deliciously ironic, but just because Occam originally came to a different conclusion doesn't make the atheist conclusion false. In philosophy or science it is extremely common for people to use the lines of reasoning of someone to disprove the original reasoning of that someone. Your objection to doing this comes over as kind of silly to me, to be honest.

 

[Smidlee]

At one time God supposedly resided in the Holy of Holies, visited plagues upon Egypt, led people around by a pillar of fire or smoke, and rained food down from the heavens. God even sent a chariot down to get Elijah and transport him into Heaven. It would seem to me that God was out and about doing things in nature according to the Bible stories.

It's common for Jesus use earthly thing to show spiritual truths. Moses saw God as a burning bush was not to suggest God was a burning bush. It was the burning bush that got Moses attention

Once again, someone is using an argument from ignorance to argue for the existence of the supernatural.

Duh! Anything natural that is not understood by the beholder would be supernatural. The unknown is what separates supernatural from natural while yet when it comes to reality there is no difference.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's common for Jesus use earthly thing to show spiritual truths. Moses saw God as a burning bush was not to suggest God was a burning bush. It was the burning bush that got Moses attention

And the pillar of fire, water from stone, etc.? The Bible stories are full of supposed manifestations of the supernatural.

Duh! Anything natural that is not understood by the beholder would be supernatural.

No, it would be natural.

The unknown is what separates supernatural from natural while yet when it comes to reality there is no difference.

So the supernatural is just a list of natural mechanisms that we have yet to discover?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

They use it almost the entire day, and for things that are quite mundane. I cited some examples earlier. When you see a piece of dog poo on the sidewalk do you assume it was put their by a dog or by Loki who was trying to make it look like a dog left it? When Christians are on a jury, do they entertain the idea that Leprechauns planted the fingprint and DNA evidence at the crime scene to make the defendant look guilty, or do they ignore supernatural explanations? When you see David Copperfield perform human levitation, do you think it is a supernatural act or do you assume that there is a natural explanation?

I've said it already but I'll say it again:

I'm not trying to prove the supernatural exists. My original criticisms were against atheists who say "There is no evidence for the supernatural". I am saying that even if I did have evidence for the supernatural, atheists would not accept it because they structure their arguments in such a way that the supernatural cannot exist.

Their reasoning seems to be that if God exists then He is part of the material world. If He is not part of the material world then He does not exist. They can't even imagine anything other than the material world.

You're using a similar argument: once we find out how something works then it is part of the natural world, not the supernatural. If we don't know how something works, it doesn't make it supernatural - only the unknown natural. It's not that the supernatural doesn't exist, it's that it can't exist.

I don't mean to sound rude but are you actually reading my posts?

Supernaturalism has been a complete failure as a way of explaining what goes on in reality.

Even during ancient and Medieval times they tried using natural explanations to explain diseases. Nature was simply the way God worked. There wasn't the same natural vs. supernatural dichonomy we have today.

A thousand foot Zeus parting the clouds and running across the countryside would certainly be all the evidence I needed.

It annoys me what atheists deliberately act stupid when discussing religion but I'll humour you ... how would you know it's not a natural event or a hallucination?

We're not discussing a creator though, we are talking about a god.

You're on a Christian forum and the post you're responding to was written by a Christian. It's fair to say that by "creator" I mean "God".

We're not discussing a creator though, we are talking about a god.
If a god exists then there should be some evidence for his/her existance.

Like what?

I may be jumping the gun here but please don't say "Something supernatural". I've already tried to explain why I think that answer is illogical.

 

[Smidlee]

So the supernatural is just a list of natural mechanisms that we have yet to discover?

A virgin giving birth to a child over 2000 years ago would be a supernatural event but it's not today since we know how to get a virgin to carry a child. (We haven't gotten as far as creating sperm for scratch so that part is still in the supernatural for us.)
Notice in fantasy movies what is called magic is called science in Sci Fi even though in reality it's the same thing. For example in fantasy someone casts a spell to heal someone while in Stargate SG1 they had a hand device that "magically" healed people and refered it as science. Of course SG1 acted as if this healing device could be explain mechanical just like the warp engines in Star Trek.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Who cares? He came up with a line of reasoning, but didn't follow it to it's logical conclusion. Why should his incapacity to follow his own reasoning through prevent us from following it to it's actual logical conclusion.

Because it's logical conclusion was not "God does not exist" or "If something is too complex for us to understand then it's not true". It's premise was that there is a limit to how much science can tell us, and its conclusion is that we should not try to push beyond those limits.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am saying that even if I did have evidence for the supernatural, atheists would not accept it because they structure their arguments in such a way that the supernatural cannot exist.

That is a really lame argument. Atheists have listed what they would accept as evidence. I believe the healing of amputees was brought up.

Their reasoning seems to be that if God exists then He is part of the material world. If He is not part of the material world then He does not exist. They can't even imagine anything other than the material world.

We can imagine a supernatural realm. I am sure we can all write a ficitonal story that involves this supernatural realm. The problem is not in imagining it. The problem is that there is no evidence for one.

You're using a similar argument: once we find out how something works then it is part of the natural world, not the supernatural. If we don't know how something works, it doesn't make it supernatural - only the unknown natural. It's not that the supernatural doesn't exist, it's that it can't exist.

No, it's that there is no evidence that it exists. We keep finding natural mechanisms, not supernatural ones.

I don't mean to sound rude but are you actually reading my posts?

Yes. Are you reading mine?

Even during ancient and Medieval times they tried using natural explanations to explain diseases. Nature was simply the way God worked. There wasn't the same natural vs. supernatural dichonomy we have today.

Other times they argued for the direct action of gods, and regularly occuring phenomena were given as the evidence.

"Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete." (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New
York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)

It annoys me what atheists deliberately act stupid when discussing religion but I'll humour you ... how would you know it's not a natural event or a hallucination?

The same way I figure out that the 6 foot person walking around is not a hallucination. When others around me react to the same 1,000 foot tall Zeus walking about the countryside then surely it is not a hallucination.

What evidence would you need to believe that Zeus, or even Loki, exists? What about those thousands and thousands of gods you don't believe in?