A Huge And Hitherto Undiscovered Cretacious Beast, Part II
Posted in Epistemology, Quickies, Religion, Skepticism on | 1 minute | 14 Comments →
A few weeks back, commenter Mike aka MonolithTMA said that God always fell on the losing side of Ockham's Razor. I immediately wondered: If that's true, then why did
religion precede science?
I'd say that overall, whether true or false, God fell on the winning side of Ockham's
Razor. The simplest explanation is the best explanation, and the simplest explanation was God; that's why it came first. That's why religion and religious explanations of things
preceded science and scientific explanations – and note I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive – I'm not suggesting that religion is right and science is wrong.
What do you think?
Monolith aka Mikey
says...To say that God is the answer and leave it at that is indeed simple. However, answering the questions what is God, who is God, or which god, make it decidedly more complex.
Freidenker
says...Making shit up is *very* simple, that’s absolutely right.
It’s also extremely easy, and that answers the question “why it came first” much better than you did.
Monolith aka Mikey
says...Well, that’s another way to put it. ;-)
Pine
says...Monolith aka Mikey said: “However, answering the questions what is God, who is God, or which god, make it decidedly more complex.”
More complex than biology? That’s funny. Why then is it argued that any simpleton can see the flaws in theistic reasoning, while it is at the same time maintained that only the well-educated can properly understand biological science? If theology is the ‘more complex’ subject matter, then it would take a much keener intellect to comprehend it(in support or rebuttal), no?
Freidenker said: “Making shit up is *very* simple, that’s absolutely right.”
Is it *very* simple to make ‘shit’ up which answers a problem, is reasonably understandable and arguably defendable? If you really feel this way, then perhaps you could demonstrate it by making something up which answers my objections to atheism which reasonably answers these questions in a manner which is able to convince anyone on the outside of your worldview and stands up to criticism for the next 2000 years. Of course if your assertion is not observable, verifiable or repeatable… then I would say it’s very unscientific. Good luck.
Mike aka MonolithTMA
says...Hmmmm…it seems I was posting as Monolith aka Mikey, weird, haven’t used that variation in a while.
Pine — “More complex than biology? That’s funny.”
I did not say it was more complex than biology. I said the question of who God is makes it a more complex answer.
Pine — “Why then is it argued that any simpleton can see the flaws in theistic reasoning, while it is at the same time maintained that only the well-educated can properly understand biological science?”
I don’t know, maybe you should ask some one that argues that?
nal
says...I immediately wondered: If that’s true, then why did religion precede science?
Because wrong explanations usually precede the right explanation.
The simplest explanation is the best explanation, and the simplest explanation was God
Explanation of what? Explanation of what the stars are? Explanation of what causes disease? God is not an explanation, God requires an explanation.
Arthur
says...Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to see if I still had comment-posting abilities. Um… as you were.
Freidenker
says...Or… it’s just something that people made up cause they didn’t know any better. Christianity is really not special in this regard. You probably think the same thing about anything else other than Christianity. Elijah once said to Ahab: “Eifa Ve’eifa” –
I spent 6 hours today translating Hebrew into English. I’ll be buggered if I translate another two for someone whose sole reply to a reasonable objection on my part was pee-in-my-pants projection.
cl
says...I figured most atheists and unbelieving skeptics would give this question short thrift..
Freidenker,
I realize your comment was addressed to Pine, but what do you consider to be the “reasonable objection” on your part? I haven’t heard anything from you in this thread other than your opinion that people who arrived at the conclusion God created the universe were “making shit up,” but I honestly have to wonder, isn’t your response also tantamount to “making shit up?”
nal,
We can agree that incorrect explanations often precede correct ones. What is your evidence that such is the case here? Incidentally, where we might differ is that I don’t think religious explanations are incorrect by default. Do you?
Monolith,
I have to say, I don’t think you really answered the question. Presuming we agree that Occam’s Razor claims the most parsimonious explanation as the most likely one, by this logic, shouldn’t God be considered the most parsimonious explanation? If not, why not? I’m guessing the latter question leads back to an evidentiary discussion.
yunshui
says...I don’t think I can really add to what Mike has already pointed out. “Goddidit” is, in and of itself, a highly parsimonious explanation, but this statement doesn’t exist in a vacuum. In order to posit “God” as a cause, one must first address the nature of said god, the numerous conflicting views regarding his/its agency, the lack of any physical evidence for such a deity and so on. If I was to suggest that the most Occam-friendly explanation was that a giant shrew sneezed the universe into existence, you would rightly point out that this argument raises more problems than it solves – where did the shrew come from, where is it now, how would that work given what we know of physics, cosmology and shrew nasal cavities, etc. Why is it any different when the shrew is God?
You might just as well argue that, for the equation x(3y+2)+3y2, the answer is, “I find the maths too difficult, so the answer is z”. z tells us nothing about x and y, and was never in the equation to begin with. It’s the simple answer, but it isn’t right. The sciences provide us with testable, evidence-based, natural explanations. Suggesting an untestable, unsupported, supernatural explanation may be “easier”, but it certainly isn’t more parsimonious.
Mike aka MonolithTMA
says...Yunshui added pretty much what I would have. If humanity can agree on what God is, then God would be the parsimonious choice, until then, not so much.
I really hope the universe isn’t made of shrew mucous. ;-)
Mike aka MonolithTMA
says...Yunshui added pretty much what I would have. If humanity can agree on what God is, then God would be the parsimonious choice, until then, not so much.
I really hope the universe isn’t made of shrew mucous. ;-)
Freidenker
says...Cl – Mike and Yunshui do the dirty work to clarify my contracted claim: “making shit up” is what I would say about God only after I’ve realized that each time this entity is invoked as an explanation, it creates more problems than it solves, and this isn’t an explanation.
I don’t normally adhere to everything Dawkins says about religion, but I believe he’s hit the bullseye when he said that God is a “non-explanation”. Even though I’m an atheist, I can’t say he doesn’t exist – but even I can say wholeheartedly that invoking him tells me nothing about the universe. Nothing useful, anyway.
cl
says...Sorry to be so absent on this thread guys, I’ve been busy and the weather’s been really nice. To tie this whole thing up, Mike aka MonolithTMA’s original remark was, “I always wonder why theists bring up Ockham’s Razor as it points about as far away from God as possible.” (March 26, 2009 7:44 PM) Obviously, if people thought of God thousands and thousands of years before science, Mike’s statement appears contradicted.
Freidenker,
Just because one finds a proposition implausible or insufficient doesn’t mean the proposition is not an explanation. I disagree with your Dawkins comment. Although I can’t speak for you, I can also disagree with your comment that invoking God tells me nothing about the universe. In fact, studying God’s nature strongly influenced the rise of science. Don’t forget, scholasticism preceded science, and it was a believer who gave us today’s concept of methodological naturalism.
Yunshui,
Welcome. Nice blog of your own if I don’t say, and again, thanks for your willingness re NBL.
I can agree with you that God is in fact a highly parsimonious explanation that does not exist in a vacuum. I can also mostly agree that “[i]n order to posit ‘God’ as a cause, one must first address the nature of said god.” Further, addressing God’s agency and the numerous conflicting views around seems like a noble aim to me. However, I have to disagree with the “physical evidence” part of your comment. That “there is no physical evidence for God” seems just as subjective as “there is physical evidence for God.” There was technically “no evidence” for asteroids 250 years ago, either, yet Crater Lake’s been year some 7,000 Carbon-14 years.
I’m not so sure. That such “raises more problems than it solves” also seems completely subjective. As I said in Part I, Dawkins-esque mandates about the nature of God’s complexity in full absence of evidentiary substantiation are not what I want to get into, and that’s what I meant by the odd title of these two posts, best explained by the following remark also in Part I: “Should we assume the Grand Canyon represents the wheel-mark of a huge and hitherto undiscovered Cretacious beast riding a unicycle left by Von Daniken’s proverbial chariots of the gods? Or something much simpler, like lots and lots of running water?” That statement directly challenges Dawkins’ complaints in this regard.
I agree that God seems currently untestable scientifically, but I disagree that God is not testable. Every one of us is going to test God, this century. All I know is that if God exists and is testing me, that’s a test I’d like to pass. I also believe that God as an explanation suggests much which seems useful.