In religion forums one often sees posts presuming that Occam's Razor is a

M

Micaiah

New member
law of science. Source of this myth? While teaching at universities in the UK, I rarely encountered this belief among undergrads. But in the U.S. I found that many undergrads believe Occam's Razor is some sort of winning card to play in debates about "science vs. religion". Why the difference in perception?
===================================

Excellent. Thank you. (R&S rarely lets me down when I need a ready source for quotable quotes.)
 
T

TheBuddhistSwastika

New member
In the Kalama Sutra, Buddha says.
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it..
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
 
W

WellTraveledProg

Member
I've lived in the US most of my life, and haven't seen what you claim to see. Odd how perceptions can be different, yes?

There's no reason to have a "winning card" to play in any "science vs. religion" debate -- there is, in fact, little or no reason for such "debate" to even occur. Do religionistas have any evidence to show their initial premise, that there is a god of some kind, has any merit? No. End of debate.

Occam's Razor can come into play when some religionista claims that the "first cause" argument can be valid because their magical god doesn't *need* a creator -- ok, fine, but if you're going to go ahead and claim that, then we can claim the universe didn't need a creator anyway, and by Occam's Razor the second explanation is far more parsimonious, and so would be preferred. But it's not necessary there, either -- the "first cause" argument is logically flawed right from the get-go, there's not even a need to get down to the third or fourth part of it where the Razor would come into play.

I got 3 science degrees here in the US. I've never met anyone who considered it a "law."

Peace.
 
Top