Science is based on experience. So is religion. Skeptics will insist that it is a requirement to have an experience of science, but experience of religion is impossible, so it does not need to be sought out. They will admit that it is not possible to prove that religious experience is impossible but they will invoke probabilistic arguments to prove that they don't need to spend the energy or deny themselves to find out if it is true.
They will insist that religious believes need to have the collective experience and interpretation of modern science, but will not place that obligation upon themselves.
How does Occam's razor deal with the belief or half belief that "all experience is explainable by science in the twentieth century" which could perhaps be understood to link explanation of the origin of the universe in very complicated guesswork.
Why should people accept that it is acceptable to have no explanation at all? That doesn't seem like a simple or straightforward explanation, and it would be one that Occam would have rejected.
Necessarily, there is a right way to live that comes from a God who created life and gave it that character or there is no right way to live and there is no creator who gave life that character.
There is nothing inherently simple about the large number of assumptions required to sustain the second, although if you look at the issue in a dishonest, narrow technical review of one issue, perhaps it would seem that you could use Occams razor to prove an arrogant presumption of nihilism.
They will insist that religious believes need to have the collective experience and interpretation of modern science, but will not place that obligation upon themselves.
How does Occam's razor deal with the belief or half belief that "all experience is explainable by science in the twentieth century" which could perhaps be understood to link explanation of the origin of the universe in very complicated guesswork.
Why should people accept that it is acceptable to have no explanation at all? That doesn't seem like a simple or straightforward explanation, and it would be one that Occam would have rejected.
Necessarily, there is a right way to live that comes from a God who created life and gave it that character or there is no right way to live and there is no creator who gave life that character.
There is nothing inherently simple about the large number of assumptions required to sustain the second, although if you look at the issue in a dishonest, narrow technical review of one issue, perhaps it would seem that you could use Occams razor to prove an arrogant presumption of nihilism.
