After demonstrating that logically a lack of evidence leads to agnosticism, rather than to ("strong") atheism, several people invoked Ockham's razor to justify their atheism.
Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor:
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.
http://www.answers.com/topic/occam-s-razor
2006-08-29 11:00:32 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Rance D: So you think Ockham was wrong and that it is better to multiply theoretical entities to a larger number?
2006-08-30 06:14:41 · update #1
I don't think so - religion is a mistake, period, in all of it's many forms.
2006-08-29 11:07:52 · answer #1 · answered by Marc B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The difference between invoking 0 and 1 deity is qualitatively different, not just quantitatively different, from invoking 2 or more.
It's like the differences between (0) not being pregnant (1) being pregnant (2) being pregnant with twins... etc.
The leap between 0 and 1 is much larger than between 1 and 2.
To put it mathematically, it's an error to assume interval scaling on this construct.
Though it would be the case, if we already assumed that 1 god existed, that invoking a 2nd would be less parsimonious than 1.
But given that atheists consider the question to be between 0 and ANY, this issue is really irrelevant.
2006-08-29 18:13:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Polytheism or monotheism equally assert that there is a divinity stirring the soup of reality from outside reality. Therefore there is no difference in the "error" of either thought.
Anytime a supernatural entity interferes with the natural order, then it renders all natural observances open to question. The only way to study natural order is to assume that no supernatural entity ever interferes with natural laws. Otherwise each phenomenon's scientific explanation needs to end with the words, "Or maybe it was just a miracle."
2006-08-29 18:10:09 · answer #3 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Is monotheism simpler than polytheism? Not necessarily. In polytheism there is clear definition as to what deity is responsible for what. In monotheism people try to smash everything into one being which often runs into contradictions...trinities...God and human...created ALL things but NOT evil. Clearly monotheism is less simple than polytheism and therefore per your Occams' razor argument polytheism would be most likely.
2006-08-29 18:07:45 · answer #4 · answered by Rance D 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's the same. It's considering that there is something (or some things) above you. That leads to giving up rights on your own self, so as to give them to this superior being (or these superior beings).
2006-08-30 00:21:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as validity of beliefs goes, yes. But in many polytheistic religions, the gods are flawed, which is a far more realistic idea.
2006-08-29 18:04:22 · answer #6 · answered by drink_more_powerade 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Which of these is more incorrect?
1+1=3
Or
1+1=4
There is no "more" incorrect. It's on or off, 1 or 0, correct or incorrect.
2006-08-29 18:08:56 · answer #7 · answered by The Resurrectionist 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
”A” means “without” and “gnosis” means “knowledge.” Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods.
Not just God with a capital Christian "G", but "gods" plural. Any and all. Professing oneself to be without knowledge of any and all gods isn't "super strength agnosticism", it's agnosticism.
2006-08-29 18:03:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no greater error than beleif in any religion. Period, end of arguement.
2006-08-29 18:12:04 · answer #9 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋