Occam’s Razor On Religion

Occam's Razor On Religion


| Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Subscribe
    Notify of
    24 Comments
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    dieAntagonista

    I love Occam’s Razor. First time I learned about it was when I was 14 or so, I found it in a Latin dictionary.
    I was so delighted about it that I told ever body I know about it and wrote it on people’s walls.

    The Matrix: Rebooted

    I can think of about half a dozen thing wrong with this, but since its making fun of Christians, I approve!

    greytone

    I’m failing to see how not changing over time is synonymous with making as few assumptions as possible. And since atheism isn’t a belief set, only the lack of belief in a god or gods, there’s no way it could branch out. I don’t think Occam’s Razor suggests that atheism is any more likely to be true because of it’s lack of diversity. If anything it might suggest it because it could be argued that it does make the fewest assumptions possible. But that’s not what the graph is showing us. Awful color choice on “Occam’s Razor” by the way.… Read more »

    RSIxidor

    @greytone: Color choice: Agreed, it hurts my eyes. Everyone remember: black is great on white, and white is great on black.

    That said, really? There’s no branch of the belief of atheism?

    The completely trustworthy Wikipedia would beg to differ

    dieAntagonista

    Ey, don’t mock my wiki. I owe it to wikipedia, that I’m capable of tricking certain people who are twice my age, into thinking I know more than them.

    SumoSnipe

    @dieAntagonista: Ah Ha!so that’s how you do… oh wait…

    chris_hates_freedom

    similar concept to something I submitted recently…

    TheLotusEater725

    I never really bought into Occam’s razor. Don’t get me wrong it isn’t without merit but i just find it kinda backwards to refute other answers just because they are more complex. But i may not understand the concept of occam’s razor so well.

    Brevity Truta

    Atheists are a bunch of fundies.

    Mayyday

    @thelotuseater725:

    Occam’s razor doesn’t refute more-complex answers, it just deems them less likely. Which they are. As Phillip J. Fry once said: “Crazy theories: One. Regular theories: A Billion.”

    elzarcothepale

    @Mayyday: points to mayyday for the ‘rama reference.

    this is a flawed poster in that the divergent camps do not map out any relevant information on the number of assumptions in their belief or “theory”
    Occam’s Razor is nigh impossible to apply to any religion due to their faith-based nature.
    Religions operate in spite of evidence and logic, not because of it- which is one of the reasons that they should be used neither for education of history/science nor for judgment of crimes.

    nyoki

    Occam’s Razor does better w/ theories that can, in fact, be scientifically (dis)proven. It’s what medical doctors use in determining a possible dx, If you hear hooves, look for a horse…not a zebra (unless you’re in Africa). To use it in pure philosophy is more problematic. It’s not sufficient to prove a non-testable theory.

    TheLotusEater725

    @Mayyday,nyokki:

    Alright, i get it better now. Thanks guys.

    jadechimera

    Theories need to have relatively equal amounts of evidence in their favor *before* Occam’s Razor is applied. If one theory fits the empirical evidence better than another, it cannot be legitimately refuted on the basis that it is more complex.

    That said, I’m an agnostic, so I think both sides there are full of shit.

    Paul_Is_Drunk

    I’ll never fail to be amazed at those that claim atheism (default assumption: Gods don’t exist) is on even footing with religions (default assumption: at least one god exists).*

    How many times must I say this? The burden of evidence lies on the positive existential proclamation. The default assumption is, no, I do not have a 12inch cock, until you see it. (Even then, you have to pay).

    *Many eastern religions can be said to be devoid of deities, including Buddhism & Confucianism.

    Egh. I’m giving this one a 4/10… so far…

    TheLotusEater725

    Correct me if i am wrong here paul but because you can’t see something it doesn’t exist?

    nyoki

    @thelotuseater725: I think he’s saying that you don’t know it exists unless you look (verify). It’s the difference between knowledge and belief. He can say his dick is an impressive 12″, but that doesn’t make it true. If I want to know how big his dick, he must show it to me and I should bring a ruler, hopefully I wouldn’t need a magnifying glass.

    TheLotusEater725

    Alrite that’s what i thought he was getting at but i wasn’t sure if he meant something simpler or deeper. I need to stop reading these threads, they make me look way too deep into things.

    nyoki

    @thelotuseater725: Of course, that’s the way I read it. He may have meant something else.

    TheLotusEater725

    Goddamnit.

    conan776

    This image is fail. Do you see why? (Answer: Mr. Occam was Catholic! A friar no less!)

    nyoki

    @conan776: Everyone in the 14th century was Catholic, until Henry VIII anyway. Being Catholic, or even a friar, doesn’t really give us any info about how religious a person was.

    conan776

    @nyokki: Hard to get more religious than to be a Franciscan friar in Europe at that point in time. William of Ockham was later excommunicated by the Church for spreading ideas the Pope considered /too/ religious o_O. Besides, if everyone was Catholic back then the image should note that the bottom half is not drawn to scale. (The red line should actually go back to ~70AD anyway.)

    nyoki

    @conan776: Being called to task by the Pope from Avignon is essentially useless info too. By those standards, I’d be too religious. But, yes, he did seem to value the life of a Franciscan Monk.