Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why believe? - Occam's Razor Message-ID: Date: 19 Mar 91 04:39:12 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, St. Louis Park, MN Lines: 53 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) writes: >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. Sounds about right. >...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. To address the first part of your claim (richness), this does not make it more likely; wouldn't a heirarchy of gods be even richer, and therefore preferred over monotheism? Should I assume that Ed McMahon will give me ten million dollars since this gives my life more possibilities than the alternative? The second part of your claim is, of course, the key - is a "God postulate" *necessary* to explain reality? Obviously the non-theists don't see it as necessary, or they wouldn't see the system without the "God postulate" as having the same explanatory power as the system with the "God postulate". >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?" >...I claim that one cannot satisfactorily >explain it without the "God postulate." *I* can explain them to myself, to *my* satisfaction, but I doubt that I can explain them to *your* satisfaction; here's why: Your question contains the assumption "I should be kind to my wife". I have many reasons why *I* should be kind to my wife, and none of them involve gods. If you regard the reasons to be kind to your wife to be intimately connected with your religious views, then it isn't surprising when explanations omitting your religious views seem inadequate, or at least not very compelling. In short, your "God postulate" has explanatory power for you, but not for me. I can remove the "God postulate" without losing explanatory power; you cannot. Therefore, I see Occam's razor as applying, and you see it as not applying. >Regards, >Andrew --- Merlyn LeRoy