SOUL and SUBSTANCE: February 2009

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this blog is four-fold:
(1) to recognize that every person functions within a basic paradigm, which affects how all information is processed;
(2) to understand the paradigms of others;
(3) to discuss, in particular, paradigms which are related to science, religion, and philosophy.
(4) to reveal the paradigm shifts in my own life, a process that has completely changed the direction and purpose of my existence.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to convince anyone that their paradigms or beliefs are correct or incorrect. I am hoping for an honest dialog, but the discussions must remain respectful of others, even if there is profound disagreement. If any comments are not respectful, they will be removed.
(Revised 1/13/09)

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Re-Focus -- Paradigm Shifts

Sometimes a message at church is so thought provoking that I feel the urge to share it with other people. This morning, I heard one of those messages.* The topic was about how easy it is to get stuck in patterns of looking at things--paradigms, as it were. We get used to how we view life and it is very difficult step out of our patterns (or paradigms) and take a fresh view of a situation. It is particularly hard to do this during the rough times in life. Nevertheless, it is possible to retrain the brain--to refocus on different ways to view problems.

Where do you turn in the rough times, when you see absolutely no way out of the situation you are in? Sometimes the answer is right in front of our face! Take a look at the passage that was the illustration for today's message: 2 Kings 6:8-18 [see full text, below]. The young man in this passage had gone to bed, confident in the prophet Elisha's ability to warn him of danger. Lo and behold, he woke up to the sight of an entire enemy army surrounding them. He was understandably upset, because he could not see a way out. He was depending upon his own resources and understanding instead of turning to God. His response was to say to Elisha, "Oh, sir, what will we do now?" Elisha, who was more mature in his understanding of the ways of God, replied to the terrified young man, "Don't be afraid, ... for there are more on our side than on theirs." Now, logic would have said to this young man, "Oh, really?!--There are only you and I and yet you tell me that there are more on our side than on theirs!" Elisha knew that the young man would be unable to understand what he meant unless the "eyes" of his understanding were opened, so he prayed to God for the young man to see the enormity of God's resources. When the youth saw the vast army, with its chariots of fire (roughly equivalent to massive tanks, in present day understanding), he was no longer afraid, but his natural human response was to ask Elisha if he should kill thir enemies. “Of course not!” Elisha replied. “Do we kill prisoners of war? Give them food and drink and send them home again to their master.” The conclusion of the story is that the armies of God were never even used. Nobody died. Instead, they fed their enemies and sent them home. The last verse states that, "after that, the Aramean raiders stayed away from the land of Israel." What an ending!

=> Consider focusing on a new way to view the tough times, when victory seems impossible.
---------------------------------------------

*To watch a video of this message, go to http://www.capecodchurch.com and click on "Teachings." The message from Sunday is usually available by the end of the day on Monday.
---------------------------------
2 Kings 6:8-23 (New Living Translation) (Bold type is used for emphasis--mine)

Elisha Traps the Arameans

8 When the king of Aram was at war with Israel, he would confer with his officers and say, “We will mobilize our forces at such and such a place.” 9 But immediately Elisha, the man of God, would warn the king of Israel, “Do not go near that place, for the Arameans are planning to mobilize their troops there.” 10 So the king of Israel would send word to the place indicated by the man of God. Time and again Elisha warned the king, so that he would be on the alert there.
11 The king of Aram became very upset over this. He called his officers together and demanded, “Which of you is the traitor? Who has been informing the king of Israel of my plans?”
12 “It’s not us, my lord the king,” one of the officers replied. “Elisha, the prophet in Israel, tells the king of Israel even the words you speak in the privacy of your bedroom!”
13 “Go and find out where he is,” the king commanded, “so I can send troops to seize him.”
And the report came back: “Elisha is at Dothan.” 14 So one night the king of Aram sent a great army with many chariots and horses to surround the city.
15 When the servant of the man of God got up early the next morning and went outside, there were troops, horses, and chariots everywhere. “Oh, sir, what will we do now?” the young man cried to Elisha.
16 “Don’t be afraid!” Elisha told him. “For there are more on our side than on theirs!” 17 Then Elisha prayed, “O Lord, open his eyes and let him see!” The Lord opened the young man’s eyes, and when he looked up, he saw that the hillside around Elisha was filled with horses and chariots of fire [of the Lord's armies of heaven].
18 As the Aramean army advanced toward him, Elisha prayed, “O Lord, please make them blind.” So the Lord struck them with blindness as Elisha had asked.
19 Then Elisha went out and told them, “You have come the wrong way! This isn’t the right city! Follow me, and I will take you to the man you are looking for.” And he led them to the city of Samaria.
20 As soon as they had entered Samaria, Elisha prayed, “O Lord, now open their eyes and let them see.” So the Lord opened their eyes, and they discovered that they were in the middle of Samaria.
21 When the king of Israel saw them, he shouted to Elisha, “My father, should I kill them? Should I kill them?”
22 “Of course not!” Elisha replied. “Do we kill prisoners of war? Give them food and drink and send them home again to their master.”
23 So the king made a great feast for them and then sent them home to their master. After that, the Aramean raiders stayed away from the land of Israel.

What is Occam's Razor?

(1) Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

[From Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]

(2) Okham's RazorSharon Kaye
There are so many interesting theories about the nature of reality. How do we decide which to accept and which to reject? As we go through life, we examine new ideas and reexamine old ones in an attempt to establish a suitable collection of beliefs. Sometimes this process feels like walking through the a la carte line in a cafeteria where you can pick and choose any combination you want. Just as a smart eater will use healthy principles to make these choices, a smart thinker will use epistemic principles to evaluate beliefs.
Ockham’s Razor is one of the most important epistemic principles. It states that if you have to choose from some number of competing theories, choose the simplest theory because it is most likely to be true.
Suppose, for example, that the newspaper, which is delivered daily to your doorstep, is missing this morning. There are a number of possible explanations. The delivery person could be ill, the newspaper plant may have shut down, or outer space aliens may have stolen it for the purpose of spying on Earthlings. The obvious choice among these three possibilities is the first. The second and third choices seem increasingly unacceptable. But why? If the choice is mine, what is there to prevent me from accepting the alien theory?
The answer is that the alien theory is too complicated. The illness theory requires me to believe in the presence of a virus, something I already believe in for other reasons. The alien theory, in contrast, requires me to believe in something that I have no other reason to acknowledge. This is to say that the alien theory asks me to adopt more assumptions than does the illness theory.
One might still wonder why added assumptions constitute a problem. After all, it is not as though we are short on brain space. My interest in creativity and originality might lead me to take pride in developing a more complicated theory.
But this would be a mistake. Complication is not something to take pride in because it necessarily increases the risk of error. Each and every belief is a liability insofar as it carries the possibility that it may not be true. The more assumptions you adopt, therefore, the more likely it is that you have unknowingly committed yourself to a falsehood. Falsehood is the great enemy of intelligence. To live intelligently, we must minimize the risk of error as much as we can.
Ockham’s Razor does not state that the world is maximally simple. Clearly, the world is not simple. The world is so complex that it would not be entirely surprising if it turns out that outer space aliens do exist. The point is that we should not move to that conclusion until the evidence forces us there – until we are not able to explain what we observe in a simpler way.
Philosophers have used the Razor in many different ways. Sometimes they use it to defend traditional views. The great twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell appeals to the Razor in his refutation of idealism, the view that the external world does not exist. Russell writes:
Thus every principle of simplicity urges us to adopt the natural view, that there really are objects other than ourselves and our sense-data which have an existence not dependent upon our perceiving them. . . . Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. (The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 24.)
On the other hand, philosophers have also used the Razor to attack traditional views. For example, atheists increasingly use it against theism. If we can now explain everything about the world that there is to be explained in purely natural terms, then there is no need for the supernatural assumption. Sure, you can still add it if you want, but it is no longer an intelligent choice.
As this last example suggests, there is room for disagreement over the use of Ockham’s Razor. After all, positing an extra entity can actually simplify a theory. (Imagine trying to do physics without the electron.) Richard Swinburne argues that the God hypothesis performs a similar function. Like any philosophical tool, the Razor is itself controversial, raising some interesting epistemological questions.
One question about the Razor that is rarely asked, however, is this: why is it called a Razor? When I ask my students this question, they often answer that it is called a Razor because it trims the fat. It is true that trimming the fat is an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes insofar as it signifies getting to the "meat of the matter," the essentials. But who uses a razor for trimming fat? Ask any butcher and you will learn that there are plenty of other more effective tools for such a procedure.
Ockham’s Razor is named after the fourteenth-century logician, William of Ockham. Although he did not invent the principle of simplicity, he used it so effectively and with such devastating effect, that it became indelibly associated with him. Did they use razors for trimming fat back in the Middle Ages?
Of course not. The primary use for the razor in the Middle Ages was the same as it is today: shaving. The problem is that, unlike trimming fat, shaving is not an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes. Setting aside certain medical contexts, shaving is a cosmetic procedure. We shave to beautify ourselves, not to simplify ourselves. In fact, one could argue that shaving makes personal hygiene considerably more complicated. Nor do we shave to get down to the essentials as though a bald man is somehow more authentic than a hirsute. Shaving is a matter of personal preference. If the epistemic principle in question were about personal preference, then it should have been named the ‘principle of prettiness’. Granted, ‘elegance’ has long been regarded as a desirable quality in theories, and elegance is closely related to simplicity. But since when is hair inelegant? Just what were they thinking when they named Ockham’s Razor?
My own personal theory is that they were thinking about another use of the razor during the Middle Ages. At the end of the fourteenth century, paper was only just being introduced in Europe as a common writing material. Before then, everything was written on parchment, which is made from animal skins. The picture below features a typical medieval scribe:
Notice the tools he holds. In his right hand is a quill for applying ink. In his left hand is a razor. He uses the razor to scrape the parchment clean when he makes an error. His razor is an eraser.
I believe that we would all do well to be more conscious of the principle of simplicity. It is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of accuracy. Ockham’s Razor is the way to keep your mind neat and clean.
(Sharon Kaye is assistant professor in philosophy at John Carroll University Cleveland, Ohio)

[From Royal Institute of Philosophy: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=18)

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS

A list of USEFUL TERMS, from the University of Aberdeen, Philosophy, School of Philosophy, and Religious Studies, Old Brewery • High Street • Aberdeen • AB24 3UB http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the ‘something else’ is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).
EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience.
EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.
ETHICS The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?
FIDEISM Holds that religious beliefs can not be justified by rational means, but only through faith.
LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can we talk meaningfully about objects that don’t exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns?
METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely? What is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is time? What is space? How is change possible?
NATURAL THEOLOGY Knowledge of God which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation.
ONTOLOGY The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the mind. Central questions in the philosophy of mind include: Is it possible for a machine to think? How is the mind related to the brain? Do animals have minds? How can I know that anyone else has a mind? (This last one is sometimes called the problem of other minds.)
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The branch of philosophy which discusses the nature and existence of God. Central questions include: Does God exist? What sort of evidence could justify belief in God? If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Is there life after death? Do we have souls? How could we know anything about God?
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The branch of philosophy which analyses the nature and results of scientific inquiry. Central questions include: Do scientist describe reality or just appearances? Can we have good reason to believe in the existence of unobservable entities (e.g. quarks)? What happens when one scientific theory replaces an older theory?
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The branch of philosophy that discusses freedom, justice, rights, democracy and other political issues. Central questions include: Is democracy the best form of government? How can we balance rights and responsibilities?
RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at least not by sense-experience alone.... Contrast EMPIRICISM
SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind.
THEODICY An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.
UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximize the general happiness (in some versions: maximize the general pleasure; in some versions: maximize the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority.
VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful.

SOUL and SUBSTANCE

PARADIGM

Statement of Purpose

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Re-Focus -- Paradigm Shifts

Blog Archive

About Me

ShareThis

Followers

My Other Blogs

An Inspiring Blog.......

BlogCatalog

FAVORITE SITES CONCERNING SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY

Thought-Provoking Blogs

What is Occam's Razor?

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS