Occam's Razor, Anyone?

[Heresis]

Occam's Razor basically states that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." In scientific terms, this means that the simplest answer to a question, when faced with two or more possible answers, is the most accurate. Having said that, I find Christianity has very strange and enigmatic explanations for history and the world around us.

For instance, the story about Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why create such an incredible penalty for something that this god knew would happen? After all, it is all part of his plan in the first place being that he is omnipotent and omniscient. This is the explanation given for why "evil" happens. This could better be explained by the conclusion that there is no god, or, if there is, he is deistic rather than theistic, but, as LaPlace showed us, the model works fine without a god figure.

Another strange example from the Bible is the story of Noah and the ark. Are we actually supposed to believe that Noah actually had two of every animal on the ark with him and his family? This seems mildly plausible until one examines some other beliefs held in the Christian faith, such as the belief that humans were created before animals (Which then begs the question, were there also two of every type of dinosaur on the ark? How did that work? Also, the interbreeding taking place would have surely destroyed our species after several generations, unless it was condoned by god in which case, it would just be weird).

The widely held belief that the entire universe is only six thousand years old comes to mind, as well, even though science has been able to date it as far back as 14.5 billion years old.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that since none of these claims have been adequately explained or backed up by evidence (the Bible is hearsay and doesn't count), why believe them when science offers a totally rational alternative based on tested facts and absent superstitious, non-provable (or disprovable) beliefs?

[EduChris]

...how I can know they speak truth...

This is a clever twist on words--the effect of which is to imply that if the theist "cannot show they speak the truth," they are therefore not speaking the truth, or in other words, engaging in falsehood ("full of it" was your term).

Theism is a metaphysical position which--like all metaphysical positions--cannot be evidenced. Still, we all necessarily live our lives within the context of some metaphysical framework, and none of us can provide evidence to show that our adopted metaphysical position is "the truth." All we can do as theists is to explain why we have adopted theism over any other non-theistic alternative.

To constantly provoke and prod others into showing that they "speak the truth" on metaphysical matters is to misunderstand metaphysics entirely, to debase the level of discourse, and to discourage movement toward greater mutual understanding.

[Oldfarmhouse]

...how I can know they speak truth...

This is a clever twist on words--the effect of which is to imply that if the theist "cannot show they speak the truth," they are therefore not speaking the truth, or in other words, engaging in falsehood ("full of it" was your term).

Theism is a metaphysical position which--like all metaphysical positions--cannot be evidenced. Still, we all necessarily live our lives within the context of some metaphysical framework, and none of us can provide evidence to show that our adopted metaphysical position is "the truth." All we can do as theists is to explain why we have adopted theism over any other non-theistic alternative.

To constantly provoke and prod others into showing that they "speak the truth" on metaphysical matters is to misunderstand metaphysics entirely, to debase the level of discourse, and to discourage movement toward greater mutual understanding.

From the entire paragraph that Joey wrote:

It's not that discovering God wouldn't matter to me. It's that after all this time watching theists question my sincerity when I ask them how I can know they speak truth, I've come to the only conclusion I can possibly consider valid...

"God love 'em, but theist're full of it."

How, exactly are words being twisted? Joey is right -- I often have my sincerity questioned by believers. Statements like: "You think you are an atheist." "You reject the evidence for god out of your desire to sin." "You know deep down there really is a god." "You hate god and that's why you claim you don't believe in him." "You think you are god." And I could go on. These are things that holy rollers have actually said to me online and in person. Many times -- I am not making this up.

Then if I turn it around -- how do I know that you are sincere? Nothing is twisted. There is no manipulation going on, it's merely a response. Religious believers claim to believe things that are simply not believable. It is not unreasonable to question the sincerity of that. It does appear sometimes that theists are just putting on an act. I can't help that -- I'm not saying they all are.

Now if you come back with blaming me for "not understanding metaphysics" -- is there anyway I can take that as something other than a lame excuse to shift the burden of proof?

If there is, please, by all means, proceed -- I'm all ears.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 49:

Joey...lets pick this up here > Evidence, schmevidence and the extraordinary

I wanted to reference the post so all concerned see I'm tryin' to keep up.

I'm a-headin' that way here directly...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 50:

...how I can know they speak truth...

This is a clever twist on words--the effect of which is to imply that if the theist "cannot show they speak the truth," they are therefore not speaking the truth, or in other words, engaging in falsehood ("full of it" was your term).

Notice, I ask if one can show they speak truth, any implication or conclusion the observer gets from that is on them.

That you find the mere asking of the question problematic indicates to me you're one of that bunch that can't show they speak truth.

"Full of it" is indicative of how I feel when folks make claims in debate and are unable to support those claims, yes.

Theism is a metaphysical position which--like all metaphysical positions--cannot be evidenced.

Yet when challenged on their claims, many a 'metaphysicist', instead of clarifying the nature of their claim, gets upset cause poor ol' put upon Joey asked "can you show you speak truth". I propose if one doesn't want their claims challenged in debate, hushing up may be a grand idea.

Still, we all necessarily live our lives within the context of some metaphysical framework, and none of us can provide evidence to show that our adopted metaphysical position is "the truth." All we can do as theists is to explain why we have adopted theism over any other non-theistic alternative.

I wish ya'd tell that to the bunch of ya that declare their claims TRUTH(tm.

To constantly provoke and prod others into showing that they "speak the truth" on metaphysical matters is to misunderstand metaphysics entirely, to debase the level of discourse, and to discourage movement toward greater mutual understanding.

You have your "level of discourse", I have mine. I'll not be "prodded" into debating in a manner you deem fit.

Where one makes claims, I'll challenge the ones I deem challengin' until such time I'm prevented from doing so.

I have no need for "greater mutual understanding" of woo.

Your own Bible accuses me of being "blind" to religious claims. It declares me a "fool" for rejecting religious claims. It threatens me with an "eternity" in a "lake of fire" for doing the best I can with what God gave me - and realizing he ain't up there to be a-givin' me anything.

Yeah, your "metaphysics" is to insult me, threaten me and to demean me, all in the name of a "loving" god. And you seek "greater mutual understanding"? Your "greater mutual understanding" is a cover for "and if you don't like my god, then you're a 'fool'!" That's your "metaphysics". That's your conclusion, borne of your acceptance of a text that insults me, disparages me, threatens me, and slanders me at every turn.

When your own holy text, and a good bunch of its proponents, quits slandering me, I may then find reason to stop asking how we can know such slander is truth.

[Goat]

...how I can know they speak truth...

This is a clever twist on words--the effect of which is to imply that if the theist "cannot show they speak the truth," they are therefore not speaking the truth, or in other words, engaging in falsehood ("full of it" was your term).

Of course, this is totally ignoring the most likely interpretation of the other catagory.. and that is believing but mistaken'. There is a whole set that can cover 'believing but mistaken'.

Theism is a metaphysical position which--like all metaphysical positions--cannot be evidenced.

If it can't be evidence, why believe it? Because it gives you warm fuzzies? If there can not be any evidence for it, how do you distiguish it from 'making things up as we go along' , or 'purest fantasy'.

Still, we all necessarily live our lives within the context of some metaphysical framework, and none of us can provide evidence to show that our adopted metaphysical position is "the truth." All we can do as theists is to explain why we have adopted theism over any other non-theistic alternative.

Then, why make things so complicated, and play so many unsupportable word games ?? I find the more complicated the concept, the more likely it is to be wrong. If something is really really complicated, and it can't be evidenced, IMO, it is almost positive to be incorrect. If something is complicated , I would need to have a bit if verification before I accept it.

To constantly provoke and prod others into showing that they "speak the truth" on metaphysical matters is to misunderstand metaphysics entirely, to debase the level of discourse, and to discourage movement toward greater mutual understanding.

Well, when people use the double talk of post modernism, that is a barrier to 'mutual understanding' to begin with. This is the debate section of the forum. Here, you have to back up your assertions. If you can't back it up.. well, the idea just don't hold any water.

[Confused]

From Post 45:

I reference your post Awediot, so you can see I read it, but really, I think there's no need to quote the pertinent parts. Also, I really do 'preciate that you're as upfront and honest as you can be - that indicates to me you have integrity, even if I may disagree with your conclusions.

I accept that you, and theists in general believe there's a god, and believe this god may even act here on this planet. What I never see though is any evidence beyond one's own incredulity.

Now, the reason I bring this up has to do with how I see the god concept. I contend it is borne of the unknown, the unanswerable, and yes, the incredulous. I propose that where one has become so vexed by a given situation, by a given problem, and where there is no immediate answer or resolution, the god concept will then be a container for this issue. So, what would otherwise be a problem of such concern that it would distract a person from their day to day activities, and where this problem is thought to be of such importance, the god concept allows an "out".

I would fully agree that the perception of the god's involvement would seem just as real as my own auditory hallucinations were once so real to me. The concept itself need not be "scientifically justified" or justified by any other evidentiary standard - but that as long as the issue remains vexing enough to cause the theist some discomfort, the god concept is there to provide that comfort. So, the "scientfic" need not apply, the "materialistic" need not apply in such vexing situations. The only solution that removes such a vexing problem is the god concept.

Why are we here? The scientist may say because we're a complex collection of biological chemicals and the scientist finds comfort enough the god concept need not be introduced. But, what of the more philosophically bent individual? He 'must' have some answer beyond the purely scientific, so he searches through various philosophical ideas until he comes on one that allows him to be not so vexed. Often, this idea is the god concept.

I propose that where the theist arrives at their conclusions - through honest and sincere searching of soul - they have simply come to the wrong conclusion. I do not doubt the sincerity of the theist, I do not doubt their motivations (even as I propose a possible motivation that need not imply nefarity).

Notice now, you admit that the evidence I seek - of which all I asked is "some" - causes you some distress, in that you doubt my sincerity and you doubt I'd even look at the evidence you may present. I propose that through no nefarity of your own that you have sub/consciously admitted that your evidence is weak (as relates to other folks, per your own admittance or implication). I propose this is a psychological defense mechanism - again, without nefarity - that allows the theist to not address the very weaknesses of their argument. It immediately puts the challenger on the defensive, where the thiest would be able to argue the merits of even challenging the claim, thus avoiding the real discussion about how weak that evidence really is.

We see this tactic often in these and other forooms, and I contend they provide compelling evidence to reasonably and logically conclude that the god concept is specifically for all that which is not known or for all that which can not be confirmed.

Thus, I contend that if the theist expects to be trusted when they make claims, they should be willing to present their evidence for examination, and not just jump to challenging the sincerity or such of the one who challenges them. I propose the observer is plenty wise enough to see right through such a tactic, to see that it is nothing more than a diversion.

I do NOT doubt the sincerity of your beliefs.

I just doubt your ability to show those beliefs are grounded in anything beyond your own incredulity or lack of confirmable knowledge.

The choice is yours as you meander through the debates on this site. You'll either expose yourself to the observer as an incredulous preacher, or you'll expose your evidence.

Either way, I contend your evidence, if put to the light of scrutiny, will be found to be nothing more than a fine display of incredulity.

It's not that discovering God wouldn't matter to me. It's that after all this time watching theists question my sincerity when I ask them how I can know they speak truth, I've come to the only conclusion I can possibly consider valid...

"God love 'em, but theist're full of it."

Moderator Intervention
Your final comment in red really wasn't necessary Joey. It could have been put in a much more civil way with much less derogatory terms. Please try to be respectful of others beliefs, even if they don't coincide with yours.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[EduChris]

...Theism is a metaphysical position which--like all metaphysical positions--cannot be evidenced...

...If it can't be evidence, why believe it? Because it gives you warm fuzzies? If there can not be any evidence for it, how do you distiguish it from 'making things up as we go along' , or 'purest fantasy'...

Our metaphysical framework is what we use to guide our interpretation of evidence. Without a metaphysical framework of some kind, we wouldn't even be able to know what "evidence" or "rational arguments" are.

...Still, we all necessarily live our lives within the context of some metaphysical framework, and none of us can provide evidence to show that our adopted metaphysical position is "the truth." All we can do as theists is to explain why we have adopted theism over any other non-theistic alternative...

...why make things so complicated, and play so many unsupportable word games ?? I find the more complicated the concept, the more likely it is to be wrong. If something is really really complicated, and it can't be evidenced, IMO, it is almost positive to be incorrect...

Your own metaphysical framework leads you to see things as "complicated" or "simple." Your own metaphysical framework leads you to think that everything that is "complicated" requires "evidence," but to me this sounds like a hopelessly complicated and self-defeating metaphysical framework in its own right. To me, you are arguing with yourself inside a narrow metaphysical straightjacket of your own devising.

...If something is complicated , I would need to have a bit if verification before I accept it...

What evidence can you provide to "verify" your own metaphysical framework?

...the double talk of post modernism...is a barrier to 'mutual understanding' to begin with...

Okay, you disagree with the vast majority of modern-day scholars on this point. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the preponderance of contemporary scholarship, but you should at least acknowledge that you're going against the tide on this point, and therefore you shoulder the burden of evidence for your own position.

...you have to back up your assertions...

What actual assertion have I made that needs "backing up"? Can you be specific?

...If you can't back it up.. well, the idea just don't hold any water.

Can you back up this assertion?

[TheJackelantern]

Our metaphysical framework is what we use to guide our interpretation of evidence. Without a metaphysical framework of some kind, we wouldn't even be able to know what "evidence" or "rational arguments" are.

Yes, What's it like? Well, it is physical.. I fail to see your point here..:

[Mithrae]

Still, we all necessarily live our lives within the context of some metaphysical framework, and none of us can provide evidence to show that our adopted metaphysical position is "the truth." All we can do as theists is to explain why we have adopted theism over any other non-theistic alternative.

Then, why make things so complicated, and play so many unsupportable word games ?? I find the more complicated the concept, the more likely it is to be wrong. If something is really really complicated, and it can't be evidenced, IMO, it is almost positive to be incorrect. If something is complicated , I would need to have a bit if verification before I accept it.

An interesting point of comparison here...

Big bang is nothing more than a different kind of ex nihilo, no amount of "mathematics" changes that.

Incorrect. Big Bang has nothing to do with coming from literal nothing. It's an inflation of energy from it's source energy state. Science says the Universe came from the very energy it's made of. It's the fracturing of symmetry to which is where one force becomes four.. And understanding how that happened and how it works isn't the easy part. It's surprises me when I see theists who make arguments on subjects they know nothing about as if they do.

Admittedly I've seen more of EduChris' views, but it seems to me that he and TheJackelantern share rather similar views on their debating partners' approach to the topic. They each present rather advanced/specialized information in their respective fields (metaphysics and theoretical science, respectively) and comment negatively upon those who presume to sceptically discuss the issue without sharing their level of understanding.

For my part I find it considerably easier to understand what EduChris has to say. Perhaps that's because I've got marginally more background in philosophy than in science, or perhaps it's because I have to use my imagination more to envisage "the fracturing of symmetry to which is where one force becomes four" (which of course is not in any way equivalent to something coming from nothing) than to envisage theoretical physicists using words to describe a thing which happened which they can't understand or prove. To my understanding, the essential point of current theory is that there was no time and then there was...

The clever debating atheist, of course, does not advance a position on how everything began. Even cleverer ones are quiet about whether it began at all

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 51:

...
How, exactly are words being twisted? Joey is right -- I often have my sincerity questioned by believers. Statements like: "You think you are an atheist." "You reject the evidence for god out of your desire to sin." "You know deep down there really is a god." "You hate god and that's why you claim you don't believe in him." "You think you are god." And I could go on. These are things that holy rollers have actually said to me online and in person. Many times -- I am not making this up.

Then if I turn it around -- how do I know that you are sincere? Nothing is twisted. There is no manipulation going on, it's merely a response. Religious believers claim to believe things that are simply not believable. It is not unreasonable to question the sincerity of that. It does appear sometimes that theists are just putting on an act. I can't help that -- I'm not saying they all are.

Now if you come back with blaming me for "not understanding metaphysics" -- is there anyway I can take that as something other than a lame excuse to shift the burden of proof?

If there is, please, by all means, proceed -- I'm all ears.

Very much.

Look what's happened in this thread alone when claims were challenged...

...
I just might (see above)...but I kind of doubt you really want it... I need evidence that your desire is sincere... Convince me first.

So, in order to get the theist to support their assertions, we must prove we really want this evidence. We must show our desire for this evidence is sincere before the claimant will even think about supporting his assertions.

How might one show they're being sincere when asking "reckon how ya'll came about that"? What ain't sincere about trying to get at the truth of the matter?

It's not enough for the theist to worship a book so chock full of insults towards us, no, when we ask for the evidence of their assertions, we have our own integrity challenged. We must, here in a debate setting somehow show we are worthy of even observing this evidence, much less worthy of the analysis thereof.

Where the heck is Rule 5 in all this? Where in Rule 5 does it say "upon convincing the claimant you'll look at their evidence, and upon proving to the claimant you're sincere, the claimant may, at their discretion, offer up their evidence"?

A time honored tactic, borne of a religious belief that says atheists are "fools", that says "there's none that do good", that threatens atheists with burning in Hell if we don't accept what the theist refuses to support.

But of course we don't dare explain what we think of such, for fear of upsetting delicate sensibilities.

No, we're expected to be 'civil' when confronting a religion whose own holy text is anything but civil towards us.

I'm here to tell ya, it's a double standard borne of the ancient practice of DEMANDING respect from folks the theist will at all turns present Bible quotes to insult, slander and defame. "But that's in the Bible, so y'all need to calm down!" We are expected to be the civil bunch, in the face of theists whose own holy text offers us nothing by way of civility. It offers us nothing by way of respect. It offers us nothing but eternal hellfire unless we can somehow convince the claimant that we sincerely and honestly - pinky-swear, cross my heart and hope to die - wanna see this evidence. The implication being that we'll accept this evidence, or we weren't "sincere" and that we "didn't really wanna see it".

I've learned to respect many a Christian on this site because they do not just hide behind bible quotes, and they really don't much care what I think of their evidence. They present it, they do what clarifyin' they feel they need...

...and they leave it up to me to determine the veracity of that evidence without questioning why, in a debate, I'd dare ask them to support their assertions.

But I can't for the life of me understand why calling folks out for not supporting their assertions is a greater crime than not supportin' 'em.