Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why believe? - Occam's Razor Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 91 08:50:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics Lines: 63 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article mailrus!gatech!eedsp!ldh@uunet.uu.net (Lonnie D Harvel) writes: >I was unaware that Occam's Razor was used to justify Atheism. >Occam's Razor is: > >"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." > >I do not see how that impacts a faith in God. God is a simple >explanation for many complex and currently unsolvable problems, >like "who set off the Bang". Occam's Razor cannot be used >to justify either Theism or Atheism. A very good friend of mine who is an agnostic explains that the "God postulate" is undecidable -- meaning that one can either take it or not and obtain a formally consistent system. However, since the system without the "God postulate" is enough to explain "everything", it should be discarded. I think this is how most atheists / agnostics invoke Occam's Razor. Now, a few problems that I personally see with this. First, it's not proven that the "God postulate" is undecidable -- so inconsistencies could arise (and you list one, namely, Who is the Prime Mover -- although this is usually countered with some anthropic principle or another). Second, I would claim that even if the "God postulate" is undecidable, the system obtained with the "God postulate" is much more rich than the one without it, and is necessary to explain alot about reality. I hate to do this because it may be stretching things a little bit, but take the axiom of choice as a mathematical analogy. One can use it or not and get a formally consistent system either way. However, much of the modern mathematical tools which are used with quantum mechanics rest on the axiom of choice. It seems that, although the axiom of choice is undecidable, the system with the axiom of choice gives us vastly more equipment with which to deal with reality -- and with which to deal *correctly* with reality. Except for the Prime Mover question, one might argue, as my friend does, that it's not clear that the "God postulate" is necessary to explain anything in reality. This may be true in a scientific sense, but we all know that there is much more to this life than science. This is a question that I think a system with the "God postulate" can answer and a system without it cannot answer: "Why should I be kind to my wife when I don't feel like it?" Now, before everyone replies with: "Because you want her to be nice to you!" please realize that my question is somewhat more subtle. I know that I *should* be kind to her, whether I feel like it or not, and whether I will ever get anything out of it or not. I just should, because it is absolutely the right thing to do. But, where does this "right thing to do" come from? I claim that one cannot satisfactorily explain it without the "God postulate." >Anyway, I thought Occam was Christian. Is this true? This would be very ironic! Regards, Andrew Andrew Lumsdaine "We don't understand the software, and lums@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu sometimes we don't understand the hardware, MIT RLE but we can *see* the blinking lights!"