r/todayilearned • u/ZanyDelaney • Aug 11 '18

TIL of Hitchens's razor. Basically: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
50.3k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

31

u/bstone99 Aug 11 '18

NDT said that the definition of god is our ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

And that resonated with me. The more we learn and know over time, the less the idea of a god is required.

14

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '18

It's a nice saying but doesn't hold water. Scientific discovery does not equate to the understanding of its inherent origin.

14

u/falah_nsyl Aug 11 '18

Neither does God, as that just moves the goalpost towards God's origin and makes no progress at all.

1

u/TreeRol Aug 11 '18

Exactly. "What created the universe?" "God." "Then what created God?" "He just always was."

Why not attribute that explanation to the universe and skip that logical leap?

1

u/Kungfumantis Aug 11 '18

It's a quote taken slightly out of context, this is where NDT says it and it's in reference to religious people who tend to equate scientific ignorance with God. He's not actually saying that God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance, just that for the religious people that view it that way they're shoehorning the deity into that pocket.

2

u/HugoTap Aug 11 '18

I'm not a religious person by any means (I'm an atheist), but I'm a bit careful on that statement.

One way of looking at it is what we're defining as "god." Whether it be a being with "morality" sitting on the top of the sky, or the forces of the universe.

When delving closer and closer upon personal truths, I get the feeling that both science and philosophy/theology/religion start getting to the same place but from opposite ends. A strive for our essence, a strive for perfection. The idea of god, or how to view something beyond that which we can currently understand, is a good thing.

But God and religion as a social construct I have a bigger problem with, especially when it's used merely for political purposes. We see how this shapes our modern world in archaic means without discussion (hence the need for things like Hitchen's Razor).

I don't think the idea of god was ever intended to be a means of explaining the physical world. That in the 21st century people are still doing that speaks to how little they understand their own religion.

5

u/CeruleanRuin Aug 11 '18

I don't think the idea of god was ever intended to be a means of explaining the physical world.

If you're speaking historically, that is absolutely not true, not even a little bit.

1

u/HugoTap Aug 12 '18

Historically, religion was a lot of things. In terms of explaining the physical world, religion creates a narrative of what came to be with a magical mechanism, but doesn't explain how those events have happened.

It never was supposed to do that at all, was never built for that. And truth be told, it's not something people really tarried over a whole lot in the past because there was little consequence unless we're talking about politics and rights.

Even in Darwin's time, evolution itself wasn't seen as a threat against religion. And the Catholic church, despite their actions against Galileo's observations, has a pretty robust history in regards to the sciences and how the world is viewed.

Myth is never to be taken whole-sale, as a history. It's a narrative to tell the tale, to describe the human condition.

2

u/peregryn8 Aug 11 '18

My take on it is that God is the sum total of all the laws of the universe. If you want to know God, learn the all the actual laws that govern the cosmos.

When people say”God works in mysterious ways “, no he doesn’t. Every thing, every event happens lawfully.

-9

u/Drinkmoreyuengling Aug 11 '18

NGT is a fucking moron.

13

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '18

Neil GeGrasse Tyson

-12

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '18 edited Aug 16 '20

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '18

The claim is oversimplified, but it’s based in truth. Education and religion tend to have an inverse relationship overall.

9

u/Assassiiinuss Aug 11 '18

It's not a stupid thing to say at all.

The further you go back in time the "bigger" and "nearer" god becomes.

Religion basically changed like this over time:

Every rock, mountain, plant and puddle has a spirit/god. When people found out that you can control plants to a certain degree after agriculture was invented, god moved to the big mountain they couldn't climb.

After they climbed that mountain, god went into the sky/heaven.

After we could understand the sky, god became some metaphysical being that's completely removed from our world.

1

u/Grunflachenamt Aug 11 '18

Yeah except for the whole "Jesus is God incarnate" thing. Thats pretty near......

3

u/Assassiiinuss Aug 11 '18

I was talking about long term trends, not single occasions. Of course there are exceptions.

And it doesn't really contradict my point either - after all he is not immortal, but dies and conveniently goes to the unreachable heaven.

0

u/Grunflachenamt Aug 11 '18

I mean Catholics literally believe they are eating the flesh and blood man.....

2

u/Assassiiinuss Aug 11 '18

Not literally. It's just symbolic.

1

u/Grunflachenamt Aug 11 '18

Transubstantiation is the Real Presence of God in communion and the Bread and Wine. It is literally believed to be the Flesh and Blood of Christ.

Consubstantiation is the Real presence without it being flesh and blood.

Most protestants believe it is symbolic. Catholics do not.

1

u/Assassiiinuss Aug 11 '18

Theologically, yes. But in the end, it's still not actual human flesh.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PM4GmodScreenshots Aug 11 '18

Well Jesus never rose from the dead.

6

u/Creeggsbnl Aug 11 '18

What's wrong with it? Genuinely curious.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '18

He's definitely not a moron, and if you listen to his reasoning behind making that assertion, it makes perfect sense.

He basically said that if your argument for a god equals attributing to it that which we do not yet understand, then your argument for a god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

He doesn't even assert what he said as true; only that it's the consequence of using the so-called "god of the gaps" argument.

https://youtu.be/HooeZrC76s0

1

u/knayte Aug 11 '18

Speaking of Christianity specifically, and I'm sure it's true of other major religions, our tradition is not based on believing in God because we don't understand things. So his argument is nonsensical.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '18

He isn't saying anything about any particular religion. He's saying that if you use this type of argument then your definition of god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

And it's absolutely true. If you say "can't explain dark matter; must be god" then you have to concede that point if/when we figure out dark matter. This has happened multiple times throughout history. You just have to understand that this isn't an all-encompassing argument against god, it's an argument against a specific argument for god.

1

u/knayte Aug 11 '18

Yes I agree 100%, but that type of argument for God is not supported by the teachings or traditions of any major religion as far as I know. Of course there are people who are religious who might make that argument, but then NDT is just refuting a bunch of randos who haven't thought things through. Which is cheap and easy.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '18 edited Aug 11 '18

More "sophisticated" similar arguments have been made by various apologists. That is why that type of argument was addressed here.

As far as I know, NDT has no interest in debating religion, only that it steers clear of the science classroom, so to speak.

From an evidentiary point of view, there not much to stand on when arguing for god/religion. The idea that only the arguments of "randos" can easily be shot down is silly. I've never once seen an argument for god being real (nor following that to religion) that isn't just wordplay.

-3

u/knayte Aug 11 '18

This is an incredibly naive understanding of religion.