“Infinite complexity can be described by simple rules.” — Jonathan Coulton, “Mandelbrot Set”
I’ve long been confused by the argument that God must exist because the universe is so beautiful and complex it could not have developed spontaneously. Positing God, a being who is more beautiful and complex still, as an explanation seems like a fancy way of shrugging your shoulders and saying, “Magic!”
Benoit Mandelbrot died on Thursday. This is not entirely unrelated to the previous paragraph. He was a mathematician who gave us some tools to help think about how complex and beautiful things could develop without guidance. He coined the term “fractal.” Among other things, fractals feature simple and recursive definitions.
Because they appear similar at all levels of magnification, fractals are often considered to be infinitely complex (in informal terms). Natural objects that are approximated by fractals to a degree include clouds, mountain ranges, lightning bolts, coastlines, snow flakes, various vegetables (cauliflower and broccoli), and animal coloration patterns.
It makes more sense to me to try to figure out how complicated things can be created through relatively simple processes than to conjure up an anthropomorphic, Rube Goldberg-esque God as your starting point. I think Occam probably had it right, and the simplest explanation is usually right. In my own mind, I haven’t ruled out a “first cause” God – but this is a far cry from the God with a Plan that included an inscrutable need to make sure Abraham was willing to kill his first born son, to piss on Job to win a bet with the Devil, and to have Jesus die in agony on a cross.
I recall a couple years ago feeling compelled to correct my son rather vigorously when he told me that a teacher at preschool had taught him that God creates every snowflake differently. Why the rush to attribute everything to a micromanaging Almighty? Isn’t the universe sufficiently magnificent and beautiful on its own? I’m pretty happy with a universe active enough that an ape (or, going back far enough, a single-celled organism) could evolve into a guy like Mandelbrot clever enough to figure out fractals. And a guy like Jonathan Coulton who can write a song about Mandelbrot sets:
Would it be inappropriate to say “amen”?
So, if god knew or planned that jesus would die on the cross, and jesus was in fact god and god was jesus, then did god not commit suicide?
Mostly, people do not like to think and we are put off by those that do think. We cannot understand them or their ideas, so we turn to something simple to put ourselves at ease-magic. Religion is only a detailed attempt to explain the magician behind the magic. Wacky dude, piss on the people that believe in you to prove they will believe in you no matter how poorly you treat them. :) And to do so as part of a bet with satan? How screwed up is that?
Ditto the amen. Due praise to Mandelbrot. Good post.
Perhaps someone has explained the need for humans to have something/someone to worship. In studies of human behavior throughout time it appears that virtually every group developed a religionous belief pattern. The patterns seem to vary greatly from nature/environmental focus to a diety (one or more). Just wondering if there are good sources that seek to explain this situation.
Occam did not say that the simplest explanation is usually best. He said there is no need to introduce unnecessary complexity into explanations.
Supposedly, Einstein said, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
That last part means that explanations need to be as complex as required.
@varangianguard, the statement that simple = usually best follows from the original statement. If there are two ways to go about something, both roughly equally valid, but one is more complex, do the simpler. If you can alter a theory by making it simpler but not worse, cut the unnecessary stuff out. When in doubt (which means the two options are roughly equal), go simple. As a rule of thumb.