From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Occam's Razor (was Re: Vatican finds Galileo 'Not Guilty')
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:39:02 GMT

In article <1e9lbdINN4mg@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:

[Explanation of Occam's razor deleted.  Thanks for posting it.  I've never
seen it explained as well as you did.]

>At any rate, Occam's Razor can be applied to a comparison between scientific and
>religious explanations of the same thing perfectly well, as long as the two
>explanations are incapable of being distinguished in observation.

[more deletions for space]

>Similarly,  Occam's Razor applies to the pair of hypotheses you suggest:
>H1:  "There was a massive explosion 10 billion years ago which
>gave rise to the universe of today and its lingering evidence of such an
>explosion."
>H2:  "There is an omnipotent being who at some point in the past
>created this universe and made it appear as if there was an explosion
>as described in H1."
>
>H1 requires us to assume that there was the explosion that the physical
>evidence (microwave background, expanding universe, etc.) suggests.  It
>also requires us to assume that something caused the explosion (there
>are a number of necessarily vague hypotheses on this).
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nice understatement. :-)

>H2 requires us to assume that there exists an omnipotent being.  It also
>requires us to assume that this being wished to create a universe in this
>manner (as opposed to its infinite alternatives), and that further it wished
>to make the universe appear in exactly such a manner as suggest the
>explosion of H1.

There may be a difficulty in my arguement here.  It occurred to me last night
after replying to Mr. Copeland's most recent post.  Let me think more about 
it and I'll get back to you.

>On the grounds that the assumption of an omnipotent being with such strange
>motivations is a substantially greater assumption than that of an explosion
>which fits the evidence before us, Occam's Razor indicates H1 is a superior
>hypothesis to H2.

I have no problem with you choosing H1 over H2.  I'm not trying to convince
anyone that H1 is wrong.  I'm merely showing that there is an H2 that is
indistinguishable from H1 so that one cannot make conclusions about God's
existence from H1.  Further, since H1 and H2 give the same scientific results,
one can choose either and one's choice becomes based on external, rather than
scientific, principles.

[deletions on primitive tribes...]

>I note again that Occam's Razor is a rule of philosophy or metaphysics, not
>of science.  It applies to any choice between systems that are equivalent
>in producing the output we observe or require.  It is necessitated by the
>existence for any output of an infinite number of possible explanations
>and the need to choose among them based on their intrinsic properties rather
>than on prejudices.  
>
>I should also note that the assumption of an omnipotent being is more complex
>than other alternatives because such a being's existence by definition
>must be made a part of EVERY system that makes up our explanation of the
>universe, not just whatever part of it we're trying to explain by introducing
>this being.  It thus represents an extreme complication in the total setup,
>and in almost every case is greatly to be avoided as an explanation.
>
>I hope this explains the application of Occam's Razor reasonably clearly.

Very clearly.  I take back what I said about Occam's Razor not applying.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc