Where are the science & logic discussions?

[Ai Phling Pu]

Looks to me like most of the threads in this forum are more intent on religion-bashing than science...

[David]

Yuo noticed that huh.

[Zoink]

Ok, here's a thought-provoking logical statement for you:


Occam's Razor - Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

(Latin for "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary"). That is, the fewer assumptions an explanation of a phenomenon depends on, the better it is.

For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.


discuss....

[Darth Wong]

Ok, here's a thought-provoking logical statement for you:

Occam's Razor - Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

(Latin for "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary"). That is, the fewer assumptions an explanation of a phenomenon depends on, the better it is.

For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.

discuss....

What's there to discuss? Occam's Razor quite clearly eliminates God. This is not new; Occam's Razor was originally devised by a theologian, who used it to show how religion must be based on faith alone, since logic cannot and will not support it.

That's one of the reasons that religion-bashing and logic are often found in close proximity; it is difficult to think about logic without thinking about how organized religion is the single biggest anti-logic, anti-science force in our society today. People can defend it all they like, but all their apologist efforts can't wash away the anti-scientific hostility of organized religion. If you see someone out there publicly attacking science (eg- attacking geology or biology as a conspiracy of lies), trying to limit scientific progress (particularly in relation to genetic research), or trying to prevent public awareness of scientific discoveries (particularly in relation to STD's and family planning), who's it likely to be? An atheist, or a Christian? Be honest.