The Painful Truth About The Worldwide Church of God
Ockham's Razor
By John O.

In the magic of the movie, the tinsel, swirl of the moment, and the pregnant pause of two lovers and the suspense in all such romantic episodes (when proposals normally happen), it was at the height of a Washington DC party, where "everyone" who is "anyone" attends. Does everyone remember the balcony scene in the movie CONTACT, where Ellie and Joss indulged in a little verbal intimacy - after having slept together years before? Lovers they were, logisticians they became. Together again and alone, they chose - not to argue about sex or commitment, but instead they chose to argue about "God." That's Hollywood. But each had an opinion.

Ellie finally quoted "Ockham's Razor." Joss was puzzled and finally said he couldn't live in a world without a "God." And thus, Joss depicted the bulk of mankind . . . superstitious, frightened, ignorant, and gullible.

In case anyone does not know about Ockham's Razor, there are two excellent references. First in Douglas 's site of Mind-Set: http://mind-set.com/html/pages/occams.htm

and the Britannica version : See Below

If we, as ex-WCGers had have known the principles of Ockham's Razor, we'd probably have never have been hooked into a cult. As a freethinker, the character of Ellie Arroway (above), played by Jodie Foster, would throw away "God" in favor of (common sense) logic. There was no doubt, by the end of the movie, that she came to see an overall energy force of ultimate power, but . . . was it really some little, powerful, old twit sitting high in the sky? Was it some withered, angered, old God, as described by religion? Was it some impotent individual that flung a Bible at mankind and demanded that we believe it or we'd all perish in flames? Was it some senile character that was too stupid to send a Messiah until 4000 years after the world was created? Ellie couldn't see that scenario and Ockham's Razor agreed. Wisdom said NO to all that rubbish.

For what it's worth, Ockham's Razor basically states the following. "If all things remain equal (or constant), then the simplest answer is ALWAYS the correct one."

Now . . . since it's NOT my job to tell anyone what to think, I'm going to ask every reader to draw his/her own conclusions based on Ockham's Razor . . . prove and THINK. And let's see where it leads us. Please take your time and consider before answering, because there are NO right or wrong answers. Please - logic only.

  FIRST: Is there a "God being" as we've been taught, who is some "super person" and who dictates world affairs?

SECOND: Is there a God that would give laws that are impossible to follow?

THIRD: Would such a God work through only ONE person or organization?

FOURTH: Does such an Infinite God need money from you?

FIFTH: Would a God like this write only ONE book that all men must follow for salvation, and give it to only 30% of the current Earth's population? Let's forget about the billions who have already died.

SIXTH: Is it possible that such a "God" would hide Himself from mankind to let mankind grope and grovel to some organization or ideal that claims to represent Him?

SEVENTH: Is it possible that such an irresponsible God would leave mankind with NO evidence of His existence except a book that's loaded with error?

EIGHTH: Is it possible that God would send someone to "save" mankind when only five percent of the current and past world's age have ever heard of this Jesus guy?

NINTH: Is it logical that such a (depicted) "God" exists?

TENTH: Is it possible that the "bad guys" are making lots of money on people's gullibility?

Or . . . . maybe we're just looking in the wrong place.

Ockham's Razor says that the simplest answer is the most logical one. Let's look at some of the facts here. While people may disagree, everyone's invited to debate the following.

  If God is all loving, why doesn't He reveal Himself?

  How could God be a "being" if God is supposedly everywhere, all-knowing, and all powerful?

  If there is such a thing as Infinite thought, then is there any limit to that thought?

  Does that definition of thought resemble the equation that we look to as "God?"

  How could God be some "being" IF the ultimate driving force behind all creation energy is some form of ultimate thought?

  If God is not a being, then is it not logical to conclude that God is some form of Infinite energy spawned by Infinite thinking?

  Why does God NOT answer prayer?

  Why is the world such a mess?

  Why is the whole world situation getting worse?

  If the U.S. is the most "Christian" country on Earth, then why do we have the most crime?

  If we're all supposedly committed to God, then why - for the most part - are our lives not what we'd want them to be?

  Why are all the nations bent on self-destruction?

  How come many nations have different "Gods" and are willing to surrender the livelihood of their nations to defend that "God?"

  Why are so many ignoring and destroying the world's ecology?

  Why is this world and its precious people so suicidal?

These questions could continue indefinitely. But, it all brings us to the question of God. If God really IS, the why does He allow all this chaos?

Like it or not, Ockham's Razor gives an answer that most won't like. There is NO God as we know Him, and even if there were, He obviously doesn't give a damn.

Why is it that we must always justify God? Does such an Infinity need defending? The world must always somehow "defend" God. It always has . . . out of fear. Religion must make "excuses" for God. Since God is all powerful, people think, and He can "zot" us, so then we've gotta be careful, because He'll get us if we disagree. And that's the opposite of Ockham's Razor. The Razor is logic, but religion says another. Most are still hooked into religion . . . and fear. The Razor says the opposite.

So, we are then left with the inevitable conclusion. God is NOT as we view Him, but something else entirely, IF we are to accept a deity at all. God - however you view Him/It/Her/Whatever doesn't care or give a damn about us personally, and that fact is obvious. That's the simplest explanation, the bottom line to the equation, and that's Ockham's Razor.

If, as some claim, that God does really care, then why doesn't God intervene and save the innumerable lives that we are now losing - all over the world - to ignorance? Is God a respecter of persons? Does God care for some and not others? Is God racist? Africa is a mess. India is chaos. China is . . . obvious. The U.S. is ready for another President. God help us all. And etc. But there's no answer. The ignorance continues, and lives are lost and butchered or dissolved because of unawareness and hatred, and there's NO God to intervene to help. The logic being: "Does anyone care?"

So, what do we do? Since there is NO God, as we have been indoctrinated to perceive Him, how do we react to society? If anyone has not read Thomas Paine's AGE OF REASON, then please let me encourage you to do so. God is not some domineering force to pound the crap out of everyone, but something that is eternal - and for that, there is plenty of time - and that revelation is found in the creation. Forget what is happening around us. As one philosopher once told me: "God marches on, relatively unimpeded by our efforts."

We meld with God, and not He with us. It's our choice. We join in sync with love, and have respect for our fellow man . . . or, we can hate. We embrace that Infinite Energy and let it blend with us. But there are two things that are to be remembered from one whose been to hell and back. First: Surrender our wills to God and NO man, and THINK for ourselves. Our minds are the key to the Infinite. And Second: Give all of this thinking time to mature. It doesn't take place overnight. Be skeptical, but willing to prove all things. Our minds are the key. We must be committed. It MUST be the most important thing in the world. Our commitment to the Infinite. In time - and it maybe years and years - but it will happen.

Ockham's Razor can point the way to many things. Where we came from, where we're going, and why we're here. But all that's another story. Isn't it?

Blessings. Wanna chat? The email is: Enlyten@hotmail.com

 bar

Britannica: Ockham's Razor Reference



William (of) Ockham/Occam and Ockham's Razor







William of Ockham, also called William Ockham (Ockham also



spelled " Occam") (1285-1347/49), was a medieval monk.. (a



scholastic)







Ockham's razor, also spelled "Occam's razor", but also called



"law of economy" or "law of parsimony", is a principle stated by



William of Ockham, that entities are not to be multiplied beyond



necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem).



This principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durand de



Saint-Pourcain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of



dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is



the apprehension of some real entity. Galileo did something



similar by defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens, and



other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and



principles. It is called "Ockham's razor" because he mentioned



the principle so frequently and employed it so sharply. For



instance, he used it











1. To dispense with relations which he held to be nothing



   distinct from their foundation in things;







2. With efficient causality, which he tended to view merely as



   regular succession;







3. With motion, which is merely the reappearance of a thing in



   a different place;







4. With psychological powers distinct for each mode of sense;







5. And with the presence of ideas in the mind of the Creator,



   which are merely the creatures themselves.







Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1994


If you have anything you would like to
submit to this site, or any comments,
email me at:
CLICK HERE FOR EMAIL ADDRESS.
Send Me Email

Back to "Painful Truth" menu

Copyright
The content of this site, including but not limited to the text and images herein and their arrangement, are copyright 1997-2003 by The Painful Truth. All rights reserved.

Do not duplicate, copy or redistribute in any form without prior written consent.

Disclaimer