Why atheists need to stop using Occam's Razor

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Sorry about the huge post)

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

If this god you are talking about doesn't violate natural laws and doesn't have any perceivable, measurable effect on reality then what's the point in his existence anyway?

Even if this type of god does exist, why would he be deserving of our worship, prayers, and fear? He would be indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist so I would just use Occam's good ol' razor and say that he doesn't exist.

He makes it clear in the chapter why he thinks theistic evolution is not a good alternative to evolution.
A) It is superfluous: There is no reason to add a God to the theory of evolution, since it works perfectly well without
B) It does not answer the question posed, namely how does complexity arise. Rather, it posits a being that by necessity is more complex than the process you are trying to explain. A being that subsequently needs explanation.

Both A and B are firmly grounded in philosophy of science (occam's razor). This is a scientific criticism, or at the least a philosophical one, not a criticsm because of his atheism perse.

In any case, my point is that "God did it" isn't the best answer, since there are an infinity of other answers, religious, irreligious, scientific, supernatural, etc, that answer the question. What we want is the best answer, and for that, we need something to support it.

An answer such as, "Conciousness emerges from the complex interactions of our neurons at the most basic, subatomic level", is non-religious, and per Occam's Razor, is preferable to "God did it".

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.

----------------------------------------------------------

Occam's Razor has been reduced to mean "The simpliest explanation is probably the correct one". The original statement did not say this. It said: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." So how did he arrive to this conclusion?

The majority of Christian philosophers at the time followed Aristotle's teleology. To put it simply, this meant that things are defined by their purpose or "final cause" rather than their actions or properties. The final cause of a watch, for example, is to tell us the time.

Occam rejected this idea and argued the the "purpose" or final cause of things exist only in our minds. This means that we can't try to understand the nature of God by look at his physical world, even though everything which exists and ever will exist are His creation. So the type of thinking we use to understand the natural world - reason - cannot be applied to matters of faith (LINK).

Occam's Razor does not mean science has rendered the existance of God obsolete. It was originally used to it to argue:

a) There are limits as to how much science and reason can tell us ...
b) Therefore God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone ...
c) Therefore we can only understand God's nature through divine revelation

This sounds like an argument a Christian, rather than an atheist, is more likely to use.

----------------------------------------------------------

The idea that we can only understand God's nature through divine revelation was also used by the Ash'arites - Muslims philosophers who argue that God is too great for the human mind to comprehend. And since this incomprehensible God controls the natural world, this means the natural world is also incomprehensible. Therefore we cannot use reason to understand the will of God, because neither God nor His creation act in a reasonable manner. It was a disasterous philosophy which gradually brought and end to the Golden Age of Islam and left it in the mess it's in today.

Strangely Occam's Razor went in the opposite direction and is now use it to prove that science has destroyed religion, perhaps because Christianity retained the idea that the natural world has order - something the Ash'aites rejected. Issac Newton used Occam's Razor to argue that "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." We don't need to understand God's will to know how gravity works, for example.

Later this was simplified to mean "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses" by Ernst Mach. And of course, there's not that much difference between something that doesn't seem to exist and something that doesn't exist at all (LINK).

Rejecting the idea that goodness was somehow an intrinsic feature in nature also bears a resemblence to the "Naturalistic fallacy".

----------------------------------------------------------

What atheists don't realise is that the reasoning behind Occasm's Razor was surprisingly similar to the reasoning behind Ash'arite philosophy - that the nature of God cannot be discovered by looking at the natural world. But while one is often used by atheists to prove science is better than religion, the other is often used by theists to prove religion is better that science.

 

[Steve Petersen]

What I object to is the leap to the supernatural FIRST before simpler explanations are even examined.

 

[OllieFranz]

NSP--

Although I agree with your syllogism, I fail to see how it derives from the principle expounded by William of Ockham. It relates to it, but does not derive from it.

I agree that in attempting to use it to disprove God, many atheists violate the razor by adding to their premises the unvoiced and incorrect assumption that "if science does not invoke the supernatural (as indeed it never should, since science is the study of natural laws, not supernatural laws), then the supernatural (including God) does not exist."

The correct conclusion is that if God exists, then he is not part of natural creation, but is supernatural, and therefore beyond the purview of science. It is at this point that your syllogism can be invoked, using this conclusion as your premise a).

 

[NailsII]

NSP--

Although I agree with your syllogism, I fail to see how it derives from the principle expounded by William of Ockham. It relates to it, but does not derive from it.

I agree that in attempting to use it to disprove God, many atheists violate the razor by adding to their premises the unvoiced and incorrect assumption that "if science does not invoke the supernatural (as indeed it never should, since science is the study of natural laws, not supernatural laws), then the supernatural (including God) does not exist."

The correct conclusion is that if God exists, then he is not part of natural creation, but is supernatural, and therefore beyond the purview of science. It is at this point that your syllogism can be invoked, using this conclusion as your premise a).

As there is no evidence for anything supernatural, the assumption of any god existing is therefore not required in order to explain anything.

 

[OllieFranz]

As there is no evidence for anything supernatural, the assumption of any god existing is therefore not required in order to explain anything.

No.

There is no naturalistic evidence for anything supernatural, but that is a tautology.

There is no naturalistic evidence for God, so God is not natural, If God exists, He is supernatural, and there can be no naturalistic evidence.

Occam's razor cannot prove the non-existence of the discounted entities, but merely suggests their superfluousness under certain circumstances. In this case it means that science, the study of Nature and natural laws, has nothing to say for or against the existence of God.

And that is how it should be. Natural laws should not be at the whim of a supernatural agent. We should be able to discount the threat of arbitrary interference in natural events from supernatural entities.

 

[Tomk80]

Regardless of the original premis of William of Occam, the conclusions of atheists are correct.
Now, originally William of Occam stated:
""For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.""

Atheists (or better, Bertrand Russell), just removed the last part. They rephrased the premise to ""For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself)." or "one should not multiply entities beyond necessity". Regardless of the name, the principle is sensible. If you want, I'll happily refer to it is "Russel's Razor" in the future. I mean, while the original idea is still Occam's, "Russel's Razor" alliterates nicely.

It would seem to me that regardless of the origin of an idea, it's logical validity and consistency are what counts. Russels' Rephrased Razor is a valid idea in it's own right, regardless whether Occam thought it pointed toward God. The atheist conclusion is valid, since there is no explanation within science that is enhanced in any way by including God.

 

[Smidlee]

I don't believe God is supernatural either but Spirit. What we consider supernatural would be natural to a superior being. I think life is supernatural. A brain that wires itself isn't supernatural then what is.

 

[OllieFranz]

Regardless of the original premis of William of Occam, the conclusions of atheists are correct.
Now, originally William of Occam stated:
""For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.""

Atheists (or better, Bertrand Russell), just removed the last part. They rephrased the premise to ""For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself)." or "one should not multiply entities beyond necessity". Regardless of the name, the principle is sensible. If you want, I'll happily refer to it is "Russel's Razor" in the future. I mean, while the original idea is still Occam's, "Russel's Razor" alliterates nicely.

It would seem to me that regardless of the origin of an idea, it's logical validity and consistency are what counts. Russels' Rephrased Razor is a valid idea in it's own right, regardless whether Occam thought it pointed toward God. The atheist conclusion is valid, since there is no explanation within science that is enhanced in any way by including God.

I don't know if the OP meant to imply that the Principle of Parsimony (a much better alliterative name) pointed to the existence of God. I'll let her speak for herself.

But for me, as I said in my last post, it does not allow us to posit either a positive or a negative answer to that existence, merely that we can and should discount God as an active agent in Nature

Saying that natural laws require no supernatural agent is not the same as saying that supernatural agents cannot exist. It's not even the same as saying that supernatural agents do not exist, a much weaker statement.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't know if the OP meant to imply that the Principle of Parsimony (a much better alliterative name) pointed to the existence of God. I'll let her speak for herself.

But for me, as I said in my last post, it does not allow us to posit either a positive or a negative answer to that existence, merely that we can and should discount God as an active agent in Nature

Saying that natural laws require no supernatural agent is not the same as saying that supernatural agents cannot exist. It's not even the same as saying that supernatural agents do not exist, a much weaker statement.

Sure, the principle of parsimony does not prove that a supernatural agent cannot exist. None of the posters quoted by the OP make such a statement. Just as the principle of parsimony does not prove that there cannot be current demons who drive the electrons in the right direction, like sheep (with the help of little current demon sheep doggies), to make sure electrons always flow from negative to positive instead of vice versa. But what would be the reason for positing such an entity?

I mean, I can come up with a whole host of entities that do not have any effect on the natural world. But why would you give any of them credence? Why would you believe any of those does actually exist?

 

[OllieFranz]

Sure, the principle of parsimony does not prove that a supernatural agent cannot exist. None of the posters quoted by the OP make such a statement. Just as the principle of parsimony does not prove that there cannot be current demons who drive the electrons in the right direction, like sheep (with the help of little current demon sheep doggies), to make sure electrons always flow from negative to positive instead of vice versa. But what would be the reason for positing such an entity?

True, none of the quotes in the OP crossed the line (though the first skirted it extremely closely) but Nails' post, which was a direct response to my first post in this thread, certainly implied that he disagreed with my statements in that post, and that in turn implied that he felt justified in believing, if not necessarily in stating outright, that the PoP proved the non-existence of God.

I mean, I can come up with a whole host of entities that do not have any effect on the natural world. But why would you give any of them credence? Why would you believe any of those does actually exist?

I'm not trying to assert the existence of any supernatural agent. I am pointing out the logic does not support making any assertion either way.

 

[Tomk80]

True, none of the quotes in the OP crossed the line (though the first skirted it extremely closely) but Nails' post, which was a direct response to my first post in this thread, certainly implied that he disagreed with my statements in that post, and that in turn implied that he felt justified in believing, if not necessarily in stating outright, that the PoP proved the non-existence of God.

I'm not trying to assert the existence of any supernatural agent. I am pointing out the logic does not support making any assertion either way.

I agree up to a point. I'd say that it does make the assertion that a god exists much more improbable.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

1. There is no "Occam's Razor". It is an idea not from him.
2. The original principal is for formulating possible options.
3. The "razor" cannot be used to determine which possibility is most likely.

It is used to help keep theories as simple as needed while formulating them.

 

[NailsII]

No.

There is no naturalistic evidence for anything supernatural, but that is a tautology.

There is no naturalistic evidence for God, so God is not natural, If God exists, He is supernatural, and there can be no naturalistic evidence.

Occam's razor cannot prove the non-existence of the discounted entities, but merely suggests their superfluousness under certain circumstances. In this case it means that science, the study of Nature and natural laws, has nothing to say for or against the existence of God.

And that is how it should be. Natural laws should not be at the whim of a supernatural agent. We should be able to discount the threat of arbitrary interference in natural events from supernatural entities.

So if there is no naturalistic evidence for god, what other type of evidence is there?
By your logic, this means that there is no evidence for god!
If supernatural events can influence natural ones, we should be able to see and measure them when they do.

 

[OllieFranz]

So if there is no naturalistic evidence for god, what other type of evidence is there?

Supernaturalistic evidence, obviously.

By your logic, this means that there is no evidence for god!

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

If supernatural events can influence natural ones, we should be able to see and measure them when they do.

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.

---

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.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Atheists (or better, Bertrand Russell), just removed the last part. They rephrased the premise to ""For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself)." or "one should not multiply entities beyond necessity". Regardless of the name, the principle is sensible. If you want, I'll happily refer to it is "Russel's Razor" in the future. I mean, while the original idea is still Occam's, "Russel's Razor" alliterates nicely.

Isn't it a little presumptuous (maybe even a little arrogant?) to assume everything which exists should be able to prove its existance? It's as though we think all the things which existed long before we did "should" be simple enough for the human brain to comprehend.

As there is no evidence for anything supernatural, the assumption of any god existing is therefore not required in order to explain anything.
...
So if there is no naturalistic evidence for god, what other type of evidence is there?
By your logic, this means that there is no evidence for god!
If supernatural events can influence natural ones, we should be able to see and measure them when they do.

This is the problem: what evidence would you take as "supernatural"?

The impression I get from debating with atheists in not that they think there is no evidence for the supernatural - it's that they don't think the supernatural can exist. There is only the known natural and the unknown natural. They can't even conceive that anything other than the natural, material world exists.

So if God does exist then He is part of material world. If He is not part of the material world then He does not exists. This is lazy, circular reasoning.

The difference between the natural and the supernatural is not that one exists (i.e. occupies space and can be perceived by the senses) and the other doesn't. The difference is that natural beings and phenomena conform to a set of laws whereas supernatural beings and phenomena don't. God is supernatural because he is not subject to the natural laws He created. Why would He be?

I agree that in attempting to use it to disprove God, many atheists violate the razor by adding to their premises the unvoiced and incorrect assumption that "if science does not invoke the supernatural (as indeed it never should, since science is the study of natural laws, not supernatural laws), then the supernatural (including God) does not exist."

The correct conclusion is that if God exists, then he is not part of natural creation, but is supernatural, and therefore beyond the purview of science.

This is an argument which, oddly, both theists and atheists often use - why is God limited to the supernatural? It reminds me of something I once heard in the New Oxford Review: "Why should God be capable of creating the world from nothing but incapable of acting within the world he has made?”

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.

 

[DaneaFL]

Isn't it a little presumptuous (maybe even a little arrogant?) to assume everything which exists should be able to prove its existence?

Lol no... If something can't be shown to exist then it's simpler to just say it doesn't exist until proven otherwise... This, by the way, is a perfect use of Occam's Razor, something you think we are misusing.

The impression I get from debating with atheists in not that they think there is no evidence for the supernatural - it's that they don't think the supernatural can exist.

Whoa back up. Let's be clear on the facts... is there evidence of the supernatural or isn't there? You just said that we shouldn't assume something doesn't exist just because there isn't evidence for it, now you are implying that there IS evidence of something supernatural?

Please show it to me.

There is only the known natural and the unknown natural. They can't even conceive that anything other than the natural, material world exists.

Well if you can prove otherwise I'd like to hear it. All I have to go on is a historical track record that indicates that every single time we have assumed something was supernatural whether it was fire, lightening, rainbows, germs, life, we've always found a natural explanation for it.

There aren't many places left for you to squeeze your God-of-the-Gaps into... he still fits into the holes in cosmology though... and he can just barely squeeze himself into the origins of life... but once we complete abiogenesis theory he'll be out of there...

So if God does exist then He is part of material world. If He is not part of the material world then He does not exists. This is lazy, circular reasoning.

Ok, let's say it another way... If God can be shown to have any perceivable effect on this reality, then he exists. If he doesn't then he is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist so AGAIN Occam's Razor simplifies the issue.

I use Occam's Razor correctly when I just say "God doesn't exist" unlike the believers who tell us who god is, what god is like, what he wants, how he acts, who he will reward, who he will punish, etc.

All of those things are needlessly complex explanations of reality... So Occam's Razor would have us just cut all that junk out.

The difference between the natural and the supernatural is not that one exists (i.e. occupies space and can be perceived by the senses) and the other doesn't. The difference is that natural beings and phenomena conform to a set of laws whereas supernatural beings and phenomena don't. God is supernatural because he is not subject to the natural laws He created. Why would He be?

Ok, so can you show where natural laws are being violated by this supernatural being?

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.

No... for it to be rational to say that a God exists you would just have to prove that he has some affect on reality... What does your god do? Does he answer prayer? that's testable. Does he punish sinners? that's testable. Does he bless the righteous? that's testable.

For example, can you show me that statistically the people who pray to your God every day before they drive to work have a lower chance of dying in car accidents?

Can you show me that faith in your God helps people recover from sickness better than other religions?

This type of stuff wouldn't be HARD evidence for a god's existence but at least it would be strong anecdotal evidence showing a correlation between believing in your god and having favorable outcomes.

Even if you COULD show me these things, it would just tell me that believing in your religion would be beneficial for me. Maybe having faith helps people recover from diseases because it strengthens their will, or maybe praying before you get in your car makes you more aware and therefore you have less accidents... None of that would prove that a God exists... BUT AT LEAST IT WOULD BE A START!

...but you can't even give me that...

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Whoa back up. Let's be clear on the facts... is there evidence of the supernatural or isn't there? You just said that we shouldn't assume something doesn't exist just because there isn't evidence for it, now you are implying that there IS evidence of something supernatural?

No. I don't know where you got that from.

Please show it to me.

I'll ask you what I asked NailsII - what evidence for the "supernatural" would you accept?

I use Occam's Razor correctly when I just say "God doesn't exist" unlike the believers who tell us who god is, what god is like, what he wants, how he acts, who he will reward, who he will punish, etc.

All of those things are needlessly complex explanations of reality... So Occam's Razor would have us just cut all that junk out.

I think you've missed the point of my OP. My point was that Occam's Razor was not originally used to mean "If I can see / hear / smell / touch it, then it doesn't exist." It originally meant that there were limits to what science can tell us, which is pretty much the opposite of what you are saying.

I should also point out that Occam's Razor doesn't mean "If something too complicated for me to understand then it's not worth understanding" either.

Ok, so can you show where natural laws are being violated by this supernatural being?

Again, I think you've missed the point. My point was that it's illogical to argue that God is limited to the supernatural, and that He can only prove His existance by violating the natural laws He created.

If you're looking for a Creationist ranting about how science is wrong and that they can irrefutably prove God exists using magic then you're on the wrong thread.

For example, can you show me that statistically the people who pray to your God every day before they drive to work have a lower chance of dying in car accidents?

Can you show me that faith in your God helps people recover from sickness better than other religions?

This type of stuff wouldn't be HARD evidence for a god's existence but at least it would be strong anecdotal evidence showing a correlation between believing in your god and having favorable outcomes.

That wouldn't work, as the Bible states that God treats good and bad people equally, at least during their time on Earth:
"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:45)

 

[Tomk80]

Isn't it a little presumptuous (maybe even a little arrogant?) to assume everything which exists should be able to prove its existance? It's as though we think all the things which existed long before we did "should" be simple enough for the human brain to comprehend.

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?

It's what makes the original formulation by Occam less valuable than the later formulation by Russel, in my opinion. I mean, Occam basically states:
"We shouldn't assume of entities that they exist if we have no evidence for them.
...

...

...

Oh yeah, except for God of course."

It's inherently inconsistent.

This is the problem: what evidence would you take as "supernatural"?

The impression I get from debating with atheists in not that they think there is no evidence for the supernatural - it's that they don't think the supernatural can exist. There is only the known natural and the unknown natural. They can't even conceive that anything other than the natural, material world exists.

So if God does exist then He is part of material world. If He is not part of the material world then He does not exists. This is lazy, circular reasoning.

The difference between the natural and the supernatural is not that one exists (i.e. occupies space and can be perceived by the senses) and the other doesn't. The difference is that natural beings and phenomena conform to a set of laws whereas supernatural beings and phenomena don't. God is supernatural because he is not subject to the natural laws He created. Why would He be?

I disagree. There is definitely nothing lazy about asking for evidence. But more importantly, it does point to a problem with the concept of something "supernatural". I do not think it is a useful, consistent, or sensible concept at all.

This is an argument which, oddly, both theists and atheists often use - why is God limited to the supernatural? It reminds me of something I once heard in the New Oxford Review: "Why should God be capable of creating the world from nothing but incapable of acting within the world he has made?”

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.

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.

Sure, you can always argue that god(s) exist, without having any evidence to show that they do. But for me, the question than always becomes: "What possible reason do I have to believe you?"

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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"."

There is only so far an objective empiricist can go before he saws off the branch on which he is sitting.

 

[vortigen84]

As there is no evidence for anything supernatural, the assumption of any god existing is therefore not required in order to explain anything.

Everyone grants presumptions.