Shaving Ridiculousness!

Let me take a second to sit down here again and talk to you all, because you know I like doing that, it makes me feel very slightly important despite the fact that novel and music have received little to no attention in the past forever.

Because I suppose some people might not understand what’s so ridiculous about invoking say, a deity, an alien force, a demon etc. when discussing the origin of something we can observe and study (and I’m not talking about the creation of the universe here, do what you wish with that because of course, we cannot observe outside our own reality, fill that gap in your knowledge however you wish, personally, I like to think that Zeus and Jahovah accidentally took too many shots and created a universe out of pure intoxication, it seems to fit the society we landed in and that (apparently) is the only intelligent life we have come across in the universe). (Note: by apparently I mean that we’re not that clever, not that there are aliens already among us, especially not the reptilian kind.)

Take for example the tenants of creationism/intelligent design in the US, when it comes down to it, what they’re arguing is that God put everything on earth to look as if it had evolved in intricate ways that we can measure, prove, make predictions about and even show in a lab.

Now it’s easy to see the simpler explanation there, that life evolved over millions of years of mutations due to natural selection, sexual selection and the tastiest part of Darwin’s theory, quality street selection.

Both explanations come towards the same outcome, both make sense, but one is unnecessarily complicated and makes a large assumption, not only the fact that there exists a deity that we can never detect, but that it would test us in such a way that we would be completely misdirected into thinking another explanation is true.

And that’s when Occam’s razor (or the more archaic Ockham’s razor) comes in, when two explanations both work on equal ground, you can slice of the unnecessary complications and establish that the simpler of the two is more likely to be correct.

You use known elements to explain the unknown however far they may take you, and this has worked for scientific progress for centuries.

That’s a little bit of a simplification but you get the idea.

And in case you’re thinking this betrays the Bible in some way, remember that William S Ockham was a friar before you reach a quick conclusion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s