Occams razor (or Ockham) is a principle in philosophy that suggests this: if you have two explanations for something, you should chose the one that is simpler.
Multiple times I have seen debates head in this direction. Which is simpler, atheism or theism, the universe or God?
I used to say that God, being a single object, was simpler than the uncountable individual particles in the universe. Unfortunately, the validity of this approach depends on the definition of simple. (By the way, philosophy is all about definitions).
Is simple about having fewer objects, less complex/detailed objects, something easier to understand, something that can be described with fewer words or concepts, having no excess concepts than are needed to solve the problem, some other measure, or some combination of measures?
I did some digging around and found a stanford article. It seems that people tend to use two measures of simplicity: the number of objects (elegance, syntactic simplicity) and the number of kinds of objects (ontological simplicity).
Even with these two measures it is a little difficult. Looking at the universe and considering its simplicity from a physics standpoint almost no one claims that the universe is only one object, but rather that it is made up of innumerable small ones. As for its ontological score, that is not yet known. My physics professor told me that, as far as they know, the electron and...the gluon?... have proven to be fundamental particles for a long time. Wikipedia mentions quite a few others. String theory, claiming that everything is fundamentally vibrating strings of energy, fails the physics-philosophy definition quite readily. For if it can vibrate relative to itself, it certainly has multiple parts.
The theist side is more confusing. In one sense, Christians claim only one original object - God - who then scores as high as can be expected on both measures. However, some may claim that God is not one object, pointing to the trinity. However, I postulate that the different persons of God are simply ways for us to start understanding a single God that is far more complex and on a higher level than we are.
So who wins, God or the universe? From a purely definition standpoint, it's God (unless you try to argue that God is more than one object). However, it can certainly be posed that God is infinitely complex, not a measure used for formal simplicity but certainly deserving of consideration.
So in the end it's up to you. What do you consider more simple? Or on another strain, do you prefer a single origin/starting point for all things or can you accept the assumption, the starting point, of all matter individually?
And lastly, we must remember that Occams razor is more of a philosophical preference rather than something that determines truth. No fundamental observation about the universe says that the simpler explanation MUST be true.
27 July 2012
naturalism discredits reason
This post was sparked by reading the "Naturalism" chapter of "Worldview in Conflict" by Ronald H. Nash. The core of his argument is that naturalism, believe that only the physical world exists, suggests that all reasonings are change reactions of chemicals in our brains, and therefore discredits the reasoning that support naturalism to begin with, a self-defeat. Lennox brought this point up in a similar way in his talk with Dawkins. See time stamp 12:20 my post "on Lennox vs. Dawkins 10/21/08".
On the surface, this argument seems valid. Looking deeper, we should question it. Looking still deeper, we can still find some good, valid points.
First of all, the basic proposition of naturalism is that nothing exists in the real world save that which is the physical, material world contained in space and time - scientific things by the cultural definition. There are no distinct objects, though they may appear to be, all is simply a giant conflagration of interacting particles. Second, Nash says it naturally follows that all events, all states of being in the universe, are mere products of the interactions of everything else. In a certain sense this may be seen as chance, but it seems to me that a good accompanying tenet of naturalists is determinism. Determinism is a philosophical school of thought which holds that if anyone had perfect and complete knowledge of the state of the universe right now, they could perfectly and accurately predict the future state of things any amount of time into the future. Essentially, there is no chance.
But that is beyond the point. If the thoughts in our minds are simple interactions of chemicals and do not have any sort of individual identity to them, they cannot be assigned the term truth. On the surface this is true. However, Dawkins combated this idea by saying that the natural selection engine of evolution tends to produce truth in our minds.
In this sense he is holding to the pragmatic definition of truth - "what works". In this sense we have diminished the standard of truth a little. What we know to be true, how we use reasoning, how we perceive and think, is simply what has allowed us to survive better than the monkeys for the last 15 million years. Depending on your aspirations for greatness, this might be old news to you, or it might be very disheartening. Besides, the process of natural selection still goes on. Some of us, arguably perhaps most of us, are being left behind by a few of our species that are adapting better, thinking better. How do we know which ones of us are thinking better? Who's thinking is valid? I think it is reasonable to accept that our basic understanding of logic and reason can be depended on.
However, it is certainly not something that can be wholly depended on. A second doubt can be placed on our evolutionary, pragmatic definition of truth. A great claim of atheists and others is that mankind has invented Gods for their own purposes, to help them deal with the pain and uncertainty of life. Mankind has deceived itself to dull the pain. Could it not also be so that all of mankind has deceived itself into thinking that its method of reasoning is valid? And if we have deceived ourselves, is there any sense in which we can discover out deceit, especially through the reasoning which may be false? In this way the pragmatic definition of truth breaks down even more.
Of course this argument may be turned around on Christians, or anyone for that matter. Many groups and individuals would agree that many people have deceived themselves in some way. In fact, it's so fundamental and annoying that philosophers might dismiss it just because it's so annoying for everyone. However, some groups may have explanations that waylay the problem. For instance, Christians claim that it is the devil that speaks lies to us, and we simply believe them, that we want our own way and so ignore Gods plan, that we idolize the good things God has made and so deceive ourselves into thinking they are worthy of our worship.
So, does naturalism discredit the reasoning that derived it? Meh... At the least it heavily lowers the standard of truth. I think there are a number of other, better ways to attack naturalism. Lack of moral standards and qualia would be two of them.
On the surface, this argument seems valid. Looking deeper, we should question it. Looking still deeper, we can still find some good, valid points.
First of all, the basic proposition of naturalism is that nothing exists in the real world save that which is the physical, material world contained in space and time - scientific things by the cultural definition. There are no distinct objects, though they may appear to be, all is simply a giant conflagration of interacting particles. Second, Nash says it naturally follows that all events, all states of being in the universe, are mere products of the interactions of everything else. In a certain sense this may be seen as chance, but it seems to me that a good accompanying tenet of naturalists is determinism. Determinism is a philosophical school of thought which holds that if anyone had perfect and complete knowledge of the state of the universe right now, they could perfectly and accurately predict the future state of things any amount of time into the future. Essentially, there is no chance.
But that is beyond the point. If the thoughts in our minds are simple interactions of chemicals and do not have any sort of individual identity to them, they cannot be assigned the term truth. On the surface this is true. However, Dawkins combated this idea by saying that the natural selection engine of evolution tends to produce truth in our minds.
In this sense he is holding to the pragmatic definition of truth - "what works". In this sense we have diminished the standard of truth a little. What we know to be true, how we use reasoning, how we perceive and think, is simply what has allowed us to survive better than the monkeys for the last 15 million years. Depending on your aspirations for greatness, this might be old news to you, or it might be very disheartening. Besides, the process of natural selection still goes on. Some of us, arguably perhaps most of us, are being left behind by a few of our species that are adapting better, thinking better. How do we know which ones of us are thinking better? Who's thinking is valid? I think it is reasonable to accept that our basic understanding of logic and reason can be depended on.
However, it is certainly not something that can be wholly depended on. A second doubt can be placed on our evolutionary, pragmatic definition of truth. A great claim of atheists and others is that mankind has invented Gods for their own purposes, to help them deal with the pain and uncertainty of life. Mankind has deceived itself to dull the pain. Could it not also be so that all of mankind has deceived itself into thinking that its method of reasoning is valid? And if we have deceived ourselves, is there any sense in which we can discover out deceit, especially through the reasoning which may be false? In this way the pragmatic definition of truth breaks down even more.
Of course this argument may be turned around on Christians, or anyone for that matter. Many groups and individuals would agree that many people have deceived themselves in some way. In fact, it's so fundamental and annoying that philosophers might dismiss it just because it's so annoying for everyone. However, some groups may have explanations that waylay the problem. For instance, Christians claim that it is the devil that speaks lies to us, and we simply believe them, that we want our own way and so ignore Gods plan, that we idolize the good things God has made and so deceive ourselves into thinking they are worthy of our worship.
So, does naturalism discredit the reasoning that derived it? Meh... At the least it heavily lowers the standard of truth. I think there are a number of other, better ways to attack naturalism. Lack of moral standards and qualia would be two of them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)