How do we know Occam's Razor is valid? Is it valid in all cases? Are there any cases where the simplest answer is NOT the correct answer to a question?
Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar; William of Occam. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
...
Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor as in Leibniz' "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,
"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."
...
Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements...
"If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
... or in the only form which takes its own advice...
"Keep things simple!"
...
Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity. To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended.
...
The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute.
...
The final word falls to Einstein, himself a master of the quotable one liner. He warned,
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
So then I conclude that Occam's Razor does not mean a passage of scripture is to be interpreted according to the simplest interpretation. Nor does it mean that a doctrine which requires more thought or explanation or more effort to understand is 'obviously and logically' more likely to be in error as opposed to a simpler doctrine or one requiring less thought and understanding.
Some things are hard to understand. Some things require explanation. Some things require intense thought and study. God did not give us a Bible so we would not need to think. He wants us to think. He wants us to exercise our minds, and grow in knowledge of divine subjects.
While it may be simpler to tell a child that 'Santa is real' than to explain to them the whole Christmas ritual rigamarole, it doesn't make Santa real.
Well, I would consider that a crime against the child; and I am led to post that Christians often venture into areas that they, we, simply are not equipped mentally to comprehend, which I believe is largely comprised of those things which we all have guesses for, or doctrines for, but really have no idea what the truth may be. The end of any of those discussions proves this point, imo; one is no more educated than at the beginning.
Well, I would consider that a crime against the child; and I am led to post that Christians often venture into areas that they, we, simply are not equipped mentally to comprehend, which I believe is largely comprised of those things which we all have guesses for, or doctrines for, but really have no idea what the truth may be. The end of any of those discussions proves this point, imo; one is no more educated than at the beginning.
The bolded part is a clear and concise explication of my response to your post.
The bolded part is a clear and concise explication of my response to your post.
Well, I was mostly agreeing with the prior poster, while venturing the guess that we often try to parse things that we just aren't meant to waste brain space on, which might seem vitally important to us, but just don't have a definitive answer, and never will; and then lie to our children about it to cover our ignorance.
Hours can be spent on what amounts to irrelevance. I have spent years of my life at this, most likely, at this point.
So then I conclude that Occam's Razor does not mean a passage of scripture is to be interpreted according to the simplest interpretation. Nor does it mean that a doctrine which requires more thought or explanation or more effort to understand is 'obviously and logically' more likely to be in error as opposed to a simpler doctrine or one requiring less thought and understanding.
Some things are hard to understand. Some things require explanation. Some things require intense thought and study. God did not give us a Bible so we would not need to think. He wants us to think. He wants us to exercise our minds, and grow in knowledge of divine subjects.
While it may be simpler to tell a child that 'Santa is real' than to explain to them the whole Christmas ritual rigamarole, it doesn't make Santa real.
While I agree with most of what you have to say, I believe that the salvation of all mankind is simple enough for all of mankind to understand and comprehend. Leave the details to all those folks with PhDs.
Besides doctrine, the Bible is also a wonderful roadmap of godly philosophy that we can apply to our lives as we try to live our lives pleasing to God. Making ourselves a better person and Christian by studying more complicated doctrine and biblical philosophies is good and recommended. At the same time, we should be careful not to disqualify those that can't read nor comprehend complicated reasoning.
Do the people in our churches completely understand our doctrinal stance and beliefs, or do they simply trust what they hear from our pulpits? I believe a very small percentage of saints AND PREACHERS could logically explain every belief. This applies to both Trinnies and Oneness folks. I do believe we tend to over-complicate the wonderful message of Jesus Christ!
__________________ Words: For when an emoticon just isn't enough.
So then I conclude that Occam's Razor does not mean a passage of scripture is to be interpreted according to the simplest interpretation. Nor does it mean that a doctrine which requires more thought or explanation or more effort to understand is 'obviously and logically' more likely to be in error as opposed to a simpler doctrine or one requiring less thought and understanding.
Some things are hard to understand. Some things require explanation. Some things require intense thought and study. God did not give us a Bible so we would not need to think. He wants us to think. He wants us to exercise our minds, and grow in knowledge of divine subjects.
While it may be simpler to tell a child that 'Santa is real' than to explain to them the whole Christmas ritual rigamarole, it doesn't make Santa real.
This is actually a perfect example of Occam's Razor (Or Gillete -the best a man can be!).
When explaining how toys get under a Christmas tree on Christmas night do you get into the story of Santa and the elves and flying reindeer and how he spends all year making the stuff, spying on kids to see who is naughty and nice, then answering questions about the physics of it all and how he is able to get to every kid in the world and THEN try to explain why every kids DOESN'T get presents. Also how can he be in ever street corner? Does he make copies of himself and if so, what marvelous technology is he using? "He is just Santa!" is the inevitable answer. The "Santa of the gaps" so to speak.
Or
Do you just say "Mom and dad" buys the stuff the day after Thanksgiving like all the other idiots and we spent the last few days wrapping and will put it under the tree once you finally get to bed.
This is actually a perfect example of Occam's Razor (Or Gillete -the best a man can be!).
When explaining how toys get under a Christmas tree on Christmas night do you get into the story of Santa and the elves and flying reindeer and how he spends all year making the stuff, spying on kids to see who is naughty and nice, then answering questions about the physics of it all and how he is able to get to every kid in the world and THEN try to explain why every kids DOESN'T get presents. Also how can he be in ever street corner? Does he make copies of himself and if so, what marvelous technology is he using? "He is just Santa!" is the inevitable answer. The "Santa of the gaps" so to speak.
Or
Do you just say "Mom and dad" buys the stuff the day after Thanksgiving like all the other idiots and we spent the last few days wrapping and will put it under the tree once you finally get to bed.
What is the more plausible between the two?
Is the mon and dad buy the gifts explanation more plausible because it is simpler? Or because it is actually true?
Occam's Razor, as I posted earlier, is not to be used to draw conclusions, nor to support conclusions, but is used to decide between two competing theories which predict the same event(s).
Therefore, it does not follow from Occam's Razor that 'the simplest explanation of bible verses is the correct one' nor does it follow that 'one does not need in-depth study to understand the bible'.
Linear Mode
