Can science go forward...

[nebula]

In other words you can't answer it, you don't care, it challenges your belief and therefore don't want to look into it, . . . .

Do you have anything better to offer than to extrapolate my reply into a baseless ad hominem?

Please answer the earlier question. How does this have anything to do with your misuse of Occam's Razor? Or are you simply trying to resort to the same intellectual bankruptcy of invoking the God excuse you spoke out against earlier?

Occam's Razor was misused in the argument I was replying to.

Skeptics use Occam's razor as a fundamental tool and sometimes as evidence itself. Skeptics are people who tend to believe only what they can sense or what can be proven scientifically. This makes them foils to people who believe in conspiracy theories and religious beliefs.

But a true skeptic will tell you that he only uses Occam's razor as a tool for considering different explanations. Skeptics who truly appreciate the healthy investigation of the universe use Occam's razor to pick the simplest (and in their belief, most logical) explanation, but stop short of using it to discount other, more complex explanations. After all, evidence could come to light later on that shows the more fantastic is true, and a true skeptic's aim is to keep an open mind.

There are, however, some -- skeptics and scientists alike -- who wield the razor like a broadsword. To these people it proves one theory and disproves another. There are two problems with using Occam's razor as a tool to prove or disprove an explanation. One, determining whether or not something is simple (say, empirical evidence) is subjective -- meaning it's up to the individual to interpret its simplicity. Two, there's no evidence that supports the notion that simplicity equals truth.

It's important to remember that the idea attributed to Aristotle says that perfection is found in simplicity is a man-made idea. It's not supported by math or physics or chemistry. And yet, it's taken by some as factual.

Take this example. There are some creationists who say that Occam's razor proves their ideology is correct. After all, isn't it a more simple explanation to say that God created life, the universe and everything than to say it was created by a Big Bang, followed by an astounding series of interrelated coincidences?

Nice try, say evolutionists. That explanation supposes that God exists, and we have no empirical evidence that he does. This is also the case for atheists -- those who don't believe in God. Atheists use Occam's razor in conjunction with Aristotle's idea of simplicity equaling perfection to prove that there is no God. If there were, say atheists, then the universe would be a whole lot simpler right?

The problem with all of these arguments is that what constitutes simplicity is subjective.

Source

(Emphasis mine)

Without stating it as such, I was pointing out the subjective nature of the attribution towards simplicity. Stargaze claimed A is simpler than B and therefore B is not true. I pointed out that B seems simpler to me than A.

Now how would you present an argument for A being simpler than B or that B was simpler than A?

I asked a question to engage in a discussion.

Now, why will you be willing to answer the question I gave to engage in a discussion?

Insults are unimpressive to a discussion.

I fail to see where I insulted anyone here. If you think the shoe fits on you, however, I'm sorry but there's little I can do about that.

I wish I could see your body language, because your words do not come across apologetically.

In any event, when you said, "Mendel was not an intellectually bankrupt person and did not invoke God as an explanation for everything he did not understand," that comes across as a claiming anyone who invokes God this way is "intellectually bankrupt."

If you were on the receiving end, would you not regard this as a subtle insult?

There's a difference between, "God did it and I don't care how," and "God did it, I'm curious as to how."

If you're going to end up look for naturalistic explanations anyway, what exactly does invoking God add to or take away from the explanation? Can you explain how the God excuse adds any explanatory power to the hypothesis whatsoever?

There's a difference between stating, "Column-shaped cells evolved to secrete and absorb," and stating, "Column-shaped cells are designed to secrete and absorb."

I think I'll plan a new science program: one that explains scientific understanding without mentioning the scientists involved in the discovery. Let us eliminate Aristotle and Archimedes and Newton and Pasteur and Darwin and Madam Currie and Mendel and Einstein and Watson & Crick and Hubble and Hawkins and the rest in our education of science. After all, science is about the facts, not the people, correct?

So let us train our future scientists to consider the world of science without the ones who enabled us to get to where we are.

I'm not sure that you're understanding what I'm saying. Do the works of those scientists you named list God as an explanation or piece of evidence in any capacity at all? The answer is no. God has played no part and contributed nothing useful whatsoever in the scientific process (other than perhaps being invoked by some scientists as source of personal motivation and inspiration, but that falls squarely outside the scientific process and has nothing to do with the eventual research results).

My point was that eliminating the people changes the outcome in how one understands science.

Eliminating the creator, if there is one, changes the outcome in how one understands the universe.

Occam's Razor was used to eliminate the belief in God, though.

Because as I've explained, that's how Occam's Razor works. It's definitely not the ONLY criteria that hypotheses may be judged, however, and you're more than welcome to present your case for God using other trains of logic. But trying to invoke God using Occam's Razor is nothing but a misuse of the principle, plain and simple.

See the quote above.

[Valoran]

Without stating it as such, I was pointing out the subjective nature of the attribution towards simplicity. Stargaze claimed A is simpler than B and therefore B is not true. I pointed out that B seems simpler to me than A.

Now how would you present an argument for A being simpler than B or that B was simpler than A?

I asked a question to engage in a discussion.

Now, why will you be willing to answer the question I gave to engage in a discussion?

The general criteria for "simplicity" would be a hypothesis that introduces the least number of new assumptions, but you're right that simplicity is subjective and needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. You're also right that proper use of Occam's Razor does not involve claiming that competing hypotheses are false, since it is generally meant to provide a starting point for research instead of being a logical principle or scientific result itself.

What you have consistently failed to address, however, is the fact that the God excuse offers zero explanatory power and is a cop out instead of an explanation. No matter how simple it gets, it does not qualify for consideration under Occam's Razor, the same way that omnipotent pink six-headed pigs do not qualify for consideration under Occam's Razor either. Under Occam's Razor, the God excuse doesn't even qualify to participate in the race at all.

I wish I could see your body language, because your words do not come across apologetically.

In any event, when you said, "Mendel was not an intellectually bankrupt person and did not invoke God as an explanation for everything he did not understand," that comes across as a claiming anyone who invokes God this way is "intellectually bankrupt."

If you were on the receiving end, would you not regard this as a subtle insult?

Resorting to cop outs instead of trying to find an explanation, and rejecting all attempts at discovery and research in favor of the cop out, is a form of intellectual bankruptcy. This is a simple statement of fact. I don't know if anyone here fulfils those criteria, and I don't believe I've accused anyone of it. But like I said, if you think the shoe fits on you, there isn't much I can do.

There's a difference between stating, "Column-shaped cells evolved to secrete and absorb," and stating, "Column-shaped cells are designed to secrete and absorb."

For theists whose main interest is in bulldozing in God as the "explanation" for anything and everything despite the complete lack of evidence, yes, there is a difference. But the difference is one of ideology rather than having anything to do with the explanation itself. For those who are simply interested in finding out how epithelium cells function, the presence of God or lack thereof in the explanation does not change anything. We do not understand any less about epithelium cells because they came by via evolution, nor do we understand any more about them because they were designed by a sentient creator.

My point was that eliminating the people changes the outcome in how one understands science.

Eliminating the creator, if there is one, changes the outcome in how one understands the universe.

That is your assumption. The fact, on the other hand, is that God is a complete non-factor in the theories and explanations discovered and proven by those scientists. None of them used God as the explanation for anything and succeeded in proving it. And the simple reason for that is, as I've said, because the God excuse has zero explanatory power. The God excuse is simply a fancy rewording of "well, that's just the way it is!". The numerous anomalies and self-contradictions that come along with the God excuse are all handily waved away with "we can't question/understand God". The God excuse fails to explain even itself, much less anything else, and is hence not valid for consideration under Occam's Razor.

[artsylady]

Is your example supposed to disprove the fact that humans share more than 95% of our genetic code with primates? How does it accomplish that?

If not, then what exactly is your example supposed to prove?

I'm sorry you didn't understand. Although physically, we may be close to primates, there are differences that are quite stark and to me very obvious. I realize you don't believe me, so try this. Tell your family you are bringing a new girl you met home for Christmas then show up with a female orangetang. I have a feeling they may have problems with your choice of a date and they may be able to explain that it will never work with you and the orangetang because of the many, many obvious reasons why you are so very different. They can probably explain it better than I could.

[artsylady]

Is this an answer?

Yes, Occams Razor would favor standard evolutionary theory over divine creation.

I asked if you could open your mind up enough to consider that primates and humans had a common designer. Is that a yes or a no?

Do you really expect that because we share a common ancestor with other primates that we therefore will share certain traits or components without any variation?

First off, I don't agree that we share a common anscestor at all. You keep comparing primates to humans and I keep trying to get you to understand the vast differences but it's not working. I will tell you what the differences are.

I will now state the obvious differences for everyone having difficulty. (Or at least difficulty answering)

Intelligence, speech, communication, the ability to philosophize.

Planet of the Apes was not a true story.

How about a real answer please. First off, do you see the vast difference between primates and humans? Or is your new-found faith so great that you are blinded by these obvious and glaring differences? And do you recall that God has an enemy?

There are a lot of differences of course, it's where we are alike that matters [genetic/dna].

So you have decided to concentrate only on what is common? And that is all that matters to you? Interesting thought pattern. Why do you suppose you refuse to look at the vast differences?

[artsylady]

Again I ask you:

How is it that orbits can be calculated mathematically? How is it that fractals can recreate natural objects so perfectly? Math is all around us, and we are finding more and more processes that follow a mathematical flow. How is this possible?

I'm not a mathmetician but I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking understands math at a very high level. Evidently this argument hasn't impressed him.

It's a not an argument, it's a question. Maybe he's never thought of the question. Or asked himself the question.

Just because a person exhibits vast knowledge does not mean he has the ability to philosophize.

By the way, this is called an argument from authority. "I don't understand it but somebody smart does"

In fact, my own personal argument from authority is better than that. "I don't understand it but a lot of smart people who have been indoctrinated only in evolution in their entire educational background have rejected evolution in favour of creation (or ID)."

You have to expect that if most scientists are indoctrinated in evolution as the only model, they would come out with their degrees believing it. Just like you would expect a person born in a Muslim country, indoctrinated in Muslim schools and mosques to be a believing Muslim as an adult.

In any case, I wouldn't rely on this kind of thinking as a means to escape the question of God, just as I wouldn't rely on the arguments from talk origins. I would be skeptical and not blindly accepting them if I was in your shoes.

[Valoran]

I'm sorry you didn't understand. Although physically, we may be close to primates, there are differences that are quite stark and to me very obvious. I realize you don't believe me, so try this. Tell your family you are bringing a new girl you met home for Christmas then show up with a female orangetang. I have a feeling they may have problems with your choice of a date and they may be able to explain that it will never work with you and the orangetang because of the many, many obvious reasons why you are so very different. They can probably explain it better than I could.

Ah, okay. I think I understand where the disconnect is now. You're right that the differences between humans and primates is clear and obvious. What you seem to have difficulty grasping is that there are extremely vast similarities as well, and once you look past the surface and at the underlying genetic code, there is more than a 95% similarity. If humans were entirely distinct from every other species on the planet, that makes the case for creationism a lot stronger. And while that appears true on the surface if you emphasize the differences, a detailed inspection of our genetic codes tells a different story. If there is indeed a God, he apparently recycled more than 95% of his previous work on other species when creating mankind.

Intelligence, speech, and communication are most certainly not unique to humans, although primates practice it on a lower level due to inferior intelligence, and even then that's debatable; how intelligent do you think a human would be if he was raised in the wild outside of civilization, in the same environment as chimpanzees? I'm not sure about philosophy, but if I had to make a guess, I'd say chimpanzees have it too to some degree given that they are among the few species that are self-aware.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Valoran

[artsylady]

Religion does not even have any evidence whatsoever to prove itself true, much less bring anything useful to the table to explain anything else.

I disagree strongly. As far as science goes, there are more than 500 peices of archaeology to prove Biblical stories true. Or at least the people's, times, places. (Did you know that Adam's grandsons, as named int he Bible can be traced to the names of modern geographical locations?)

And sometimes the miracles (Sodom and Gomorrah) are proven, yet if you're an atheist, the sulpher balls discovered are called a 'mystery'.

Historians rely on the Bible as a timeline and a very accurate one at that.

The Bible can also explain a lot of things that atheism cannot. Whether you believe it or not, the Bible answers the question of languages, those who study languages know that at one time humanity did have a common language. If you're an atheist the mystery of how the first human had speech is a huge mystery. In all 30 cases of feral children found, they could not speak, nor could they be taught to speak. So, logically, if we use these examples (because they are all we've got!) the first human had to be taught to speak and at a very young age. (I think before 3 years of age) The Bible answers this, to atheism it's a mystery.

The Bible also tells not only of how people got to various parts of the globe but also explains why hundreds of these scattered peoples had remarkably similar origins and flood legends passed down). Atheism draws a blank.

The same evidence that evolutionists use to explain evolution, is used by creationists to explain creation model.

I find it strange when people say there is 'no evidence' to support creationism. It doesn't even make sense when the same evidence that your camp supports is being used. You are just not liking the conclusions which is fair, but just don't say there is 'no evidence'.

I could go on an on but I'll stop here.

The point I really wanted to make was this. As far as origins, since the Biblical model supports a supernatural cause, science is limited and is simply unable to answer the question of origins, if the creation model actually occurred because science can explain things only in natural, not supernatural terms. Do you agree?

[artsylady]

Honestly this is probably the single biggest gripe that I have about religion. Religion and those who defend it will not give you anything that can really be verified or tested.

Where has the "fish grew lungs and legs" been tested? Please let me know.

As far as I'm concerned, science will always trump religion.

You've got your mind made up haven't you?

[artsylady]

Or God could simply have forgiven people instead of this bizarre set of rules and requirements to reach a state of forigveness.

I asked you before (a couple of times I think) do you remember that God has an adversary?

[artsylady]

In other words you can't answer it, you don't care, it challenges your belief and therefore don't want to look into it, . . . .

No another words I don't see how the fact that we can use math to predict orbits or anything else [mathematically] results in an invisible entity that created everything. In my view a Deist can an least manage an argument for a Creator, not that I would necessarily embrace it but I can see a decent argument being made. From a Christian standpoint you have a mountain of work ahead of you to go from "i think there is some creative being/force involved in the creation of our Universe" to "The Creator set our Universe in motion some 6000 years ago. He became angry because we ate forbidden fruit and banned us from a magical garden. As time went on he would only forgive people if they slaughtered and burned an animal in homage to him. The final solution for all our problems was for him to send himself to earth and consequently sacrifice himself to himself."

Nebula's interpretation was correct. You don't understand but you're sure Stephen Hawking has it all figured out so you don't have to. Then, your next response, you decide to minimize the Christian belief origins story and call it 'magical'.

Sorry, but you will be called to task and asked to think.