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?

[Oldfarmhouse]

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?

I forgot where I found a good definition for the "simplest explanation" but it said the explanation that contains the fewest number of "ifs" in it. That is -- to explain things in a manner that contains known facts without speculation on anything that is unproven.

Biblical literalism is nothing but ifs and contains few if any known demonstrable facts.

IF the Bible is correct, and IF there is a God, and IF Adam and Eve ate fruit, and IF Noah built and ark....

All based on if.

Occam's razor and biblical literalism are completely incompatible.

[BryanBADD]

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?

You mention that the Bible is hearsay and doesn't count. What makes something hearsay? My understanding of hearsay is that it is information about something, that is acquired from someone else and not firsthand. If my understanding is correct then the science concerning the beginning of the universe is all hearsay as no one was there to witness it. That would put it on the same level of "hearsay" as the Bible if you don't believe that the Bible is true. If you do, then you believe that God was present at the creation of the universe, then at least the writings of the Bible originate from someone who was there.

Science has estimated the age of the earth using a very large assumption that no one seems to talk about. A huge assumption made in radiometric dating is that the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 found in the environment has remained unchanged since the beginning of the universe. The same assumption is made in other types of radiometric dating practices. If this assumption is untrue, the practice of radiometric dating becomes very unreliable. Tested facts based on assumptions are only as reliable as the assumptions themselves.

Good, reliable scientific research controls all variables except the one being tested in an effort to get the most reliable results. Starting off with a huge variable that can't be controlled (the above assumption), one can not produce results that can be relied on.

[Comrad3]

Hearsay
Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.

If my understanding is correct then the science concerning the beginning of the universe is all hearsay as no one was there to witness it. That would put it on the same level of "hearsay" as the Bible if you don't believe that the Bible is true. If you do, then you believe that God was present at the creation of the universe, then at least the writings of the Bible originate from someone who was there.

By the official definition as well as your definition, no. Mathematics is not "other people that cannot be adequately substantiated", it's the 'means to meaning' for any scientific explanation of the universe we can't objectively prove ourselves. The Bible is hearsay because there is no objective proof to substantiate any of it's claims. Theologians argue in the logical, not the scientific because there's less room to obfuscate.

Even if we take God at his word, it was still man who wrote the Bible. Transcription from an all-knowing entity to cave men is not something I would take to be literal. Most Christians accept that the stories told in the Bible were repeated and passed down for generations before they were ever written down. Ever play the game 'Telephone' as a kid?

Science has estimated the age of the earth using a very large assumption that no one seems to talk about. A huge assumption made in radiometric dating is that the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 found in the environment has remained unchanged since the beginning of the universe. The same assumption is made in other types of radiometric dating practices. If this assumption is untrue, the practice of radiometric dating becomes very unreliable. Tested facts based on assumptions are only as reliable as the assumptions themselves.

Assuming you are correct here, we still have other methods of dating the universe. Measuring the stretch of space in the universe as the bodies in space move, measuring levels of background radiation from the big bang, measuring the distance light has traveled from distant stars... rarely you will see large areas of science based on a single theory (don't mind the String theorists )

Good, reliable scientific research controls all variables except the one being tested in an effort to get the most reliable results. Starting off with a huge variable that can't be controlled (the above assumption), one can not produce results that can be relied on.

I couldn't agree more, but we should expand this understanding to more than just scientific research. Good, reliable thinking depends on controlling or taking into account all variables except the one being tested to get the most reliable results. It's dishonest to take a huge leap of faith to produce results, when those results are unreliable and unsubstantiated.

[BryanBADD]

By the official definition as well as your definition, no. Mathematics is not "other people that cannot be adequately substantiated", it's the 'means to meaning' for any scientific explanation of the universe we can't objectively prove ourselves. The Bible is hearsay because there is no objective proof to substantiate any of it's claims. Theologians argue in the logical, not the scientific because there's less room to obfuscate.

You yourself say that mathematics is the means to the meaning for any "scientific explanation of the universe that we can't objectively prove." If we can't objectively prove something, is it not just a theory? And if a theory are the scientists not arguing in the logical just as you say the theologians are? It would appear that the two groups differ in only the perspective from which they argue.

Even if we take God at his word, it was still man who wrote the Bible. Transcription from an all-knowing entity to cave men is not something I would take to be literal. Most Christians accept that the stories told in the Bible were repeated and passed down for generations before they were ever written down. Ever play the game 'Telephone' as a kid?

Yes, at least until the time of Moses, the Bible was probably passed on orally. However, that is how things were passed on in that time. Of course that would not work today because we have become accustomed to writing everything down. In that time, that was the only way to pass information from generation to generation and they would have been much better at it. The results of the game 'Telephone' are irrelevant to that time.

]Assuming you are correct here, we still have other methods of dating the universe. Measuring the stretch of space in the universe as the bodies in space move, measuring levels of background radiation from the big bang, measuring the distance light has traveled from distant stars... rarely you will see large areas of science based on a single theory (don't mind the String theorists )

So it is reliable to measure the stretch of space when we haven't even found the ends of space? Measuring background levels of radiation from the big bang assumes a couple of large things also. One must assume that there was a big bang, that the radiation came from said bang, and that the half-life and density of said radiation remained constant since that time (this is tough since the universe is stretching). They can't measure the distance that light has traveled. Tape measure is not long enough.javascript:emoticon(':D') To measure the amount of time that the light has traveled in order to arrive at that distance assumes that the speed of light is the same everywhere and always has been. A lot more assumptions here.

I couldn't agree more, but we should expand this understanding to more than just scientific research. Good, reliable thinking depends on controlling or taking into account all variables except the one being tested to get the most reliable results. It's dishonest to take a huge leap of faith to produce results, when those results are unreliable and unsubstantiated.

I can almost agree with the dishonesty part, except that their is no other way concerning the universe. If my faith and belief in a Creator makes me dishonest, then those that claim the big bang theory, or any other theory, as scientific fact are just as dishonest. After all, you said yourself that these things can not be objectively proven.

[Heresis]

You mention that the Bible is hearsay and doesn't count. What makes something hearsay? My understanding of hearsay is that it is information about something, that is acquired from someone else and not firsthand. If my understanding is correct then the science concerning the beginning of the universe is all hearsay as no one was there to witness it. That would put it on the same level of "hearsay" as the Bible if you don't believe that the Bible is true. If you do, then you believe that God was present at the creation of the universe, then at least the writings of the Bible originate from someone who was there.

The Bible is hearsay simply because it was passed down orally long before it was written down, and even then it was subject to changes and mistranslations. Not to mention, none of the important events are backed up by evidence.

Science has estimated the age of the earth using a very large assumption that no one seems to talk about. A huge assumption made in radiometric dating is that the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 found in the environment has remained unchanged since the beginning of the universe. The same assumption is made in other types of radiometric dating practices. If this assumption is untrue, the practice of radiometric dating becomes very unreliable. Tested facts based on assumptions are only as reliable as the assumptions themselves.

Good, reliable scientific research controls all variables except the one being tested in an effort to get the most reliable results. Starting off with a huge variable that can't be controlled (the above assumption), one can not produce results that can be relied on.

I fail to see how that fosters the belief that there is an omnipotent diety watching over everyone?

[Goat]

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?

You mention that the Bible is hearsay and doesn't count. What makes something hearsay? My understanding of hearsay is that it is information about something, that is acquired from someone else and not firsthand. If my understanding is correct then the science concerning the beginning of the universe is all hearsay as no one was there to witness it. That would put it on the same level of "hearsay" as the Bible if you don't believe that the Bible is true. If you do, then you believe that God was present at the creation of the universe, then at least the writings of the Bible originate from someone who was there.

Science has estimated the age of the earth using a very large assumption that no one seems to talk about. A huge assumption made in radiometric dating is that the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 found in the environment has remained unchanged since the beginning of the universe. The same assumption is made in other types of radiometric dating practices. If this assumption is untrue, the practice of radiometric dating becomes very unreliable. Tested facts based on assumptions are only as reliable as the assumptions themselves.

Good, reliable scientific research controls all variables except the one being tested in an effort to get the most reliable results. Starting off with a huge variable that can't be controlled (the above assumption), one can not produce results that can be relied on.

You are mistaking 'testimony' with an analysis of physical data. Hearsay is second hand testimony.

What science does when examining evidence is more forensics.. and your comment about 'carbon-14 to carbon-12 is totally misunderstanding the physics behind the formation of carbon 14 and decay. The tests are not merely based on assumptions, but they are also cross referenced with other methodlogies to see if the results are consistent. When you have multiple independent tests to check for the reliability of something, it gives a much higher confidence level.

[BryanBADD]

You are mistaking 'testimony' with an analysis of physical data. Hearsay is second hand testimony.

What science does when examining evidence is more forensics.. and your comment about 'carbon-14 to carbon-12 is totally misunderstanding the physics behind the formation of carbon 14 and decay. The tests are not merely based on assumptions, but they are also cross referenced with other methodlogies to see if the results are consistent. When you have multiple independent tests to check for the reliability of something, it gives a much higher confidence level.

My comment about carbon dating was correct. Knowing the half-life of carbon-14 and knowing that carbon-12 doesn't decay, you can figure the length of time passed since the ratio in the tested object was equal to the environmental ratio. That assumes that the ratio has not changed. Sorry for the non-scientific explanation of my thoughts, but the assumption is there regardless. I get that these results are compared to others for accuracy and verification, but I am sure that there are assumptions made with these methods as well.

[Goat]

You are mistaking 'testimony' with an analysis of physical data. Hearsay is second hand testimony.

What science does when examining evidence is more forensics.. and your comment about 'carbon-14 to carbon-12 is totally misunderstanding the physics behind the formation of carbon 14 and decay. The tests are not merely based on assumptions, but they are also cross referenced with other methodlogies to see if the results are consistent. When you have multiple independent tests to check for the reliability of something, it gives a much higher confidence level.

My comment about carbon dating was correct. Knowing the half-life of carbon-14 and knowing that carbon-12 doesn't decay, you can figure the length of time passed since the ratio in the tested object was equal to the environmental ratio. That assumes that the ratio has not changed. Sorry for the non-scientific explanation of my thoughts, but the assumption is there regardless. I get that these results are compared to others for accuracy and verification, but I am sure that there are assumptions made with these methods as well.

Uh..No, it isn't. It is only partially correct.. because you are not understand WHY there is Carbon 14 to begin with, how the accuracy of C-14 data was tested, and calibrated, and the data behind it that confirms it.

Sorry, but your statement is off base.

[Oldfarmhouse]

By the official definition as well as your definition, no. Mathematics is not "other people that cannot be adequately substantiated", it's the 'means to meaning' for any scientific explanation of the universe we can't objectively prove ourselves. The Bible is hearsay because there is no objective proof to substantiate any of it's claims. Theologians argue in the logical, not the scientific because there's less room to obfuscate.

You yourself say that mathematics is the means to the meaning for any "scientific explanation of the universe that we can't objectively prove." If we can't objectively prove something, is it not just a theory? And if a theory are the scientists not arguing in the logical just as you say the theologians are? It would appear that the two groups differ in only the perspective from which they argue.

Even if we take God at his word, it was still man who wrote the Bible. Transcription from an all-knowing entity to cave men is not something I would take to be literal. Most Christians accept that the stories told in the Bible were repeated and passed down for generations before they were ever written down. Ever play the game 'Telephone' as a kid?

Yes, at least until the time of Moses, the Bible was probably passed on orally. However, that is how things were passed on in that time. Of course that would not work today because we have become accustomed to writing everything down. In that time, that was the only way to pass information from generation to generation and they would have been much better at it. The results of the game 'Telephone' are irrelevant to that time.

Uh.... no.

Could you really be saying that information, before the creation of the technology of the written word, was always passed by oral tradition with complete accuracy?

No -- although the reference to the device, telephone, would not have existed, the principle was that same. Information passed from one person to another gets changed along the way. Always has, always will.