Ockham's Razor and 1914

Religion is a philosophy, which is the study of the nature of something, be it thought, existence, creation, or divinity. Study usually involves the examination of evidence. Curiously, there is no evidence of deities, let alone a single Christian God. Even so, an overwhelming proportion of the human population claims a belief in a higher power. Generally speaking, this involves some loose association of moral tenets, some type of worship, and a preference for one afterlife story or another. The largest justification for this kind of devotion are holy books written by people who are dead, making claims of events for which there were no living witnesses at the time of publication, and no evidence of even cursory peer review.

In short, God is an urban legend.

Logically speaking, he's the equivalent of the Boogie Man. Everyone always knows someone who knows someone who's claimed to have seen him. If we place the bible in the construct of completely second-hand accounts, there is very little that can be proven to have occurred. Certain historical events are accurately represented, though we only know that from independent verified sources. But it's the ecumenical bits of Christianity that are suspect.

Moses, for example, was the only one present when he received instruction from God through the burning bush. He was also the only one at the top of Mount Zion to receive the Ten Commandments (and the remainder of the Mosaic Law). In fact, a lot of what Moses claimed had no witnesses. Eve was deceived by a serpent, but there was no one else around to hear it. Every prophecy that was delivered by God was written down by the only person to hear it and then delivered as fact. But the kicker here is that it's true because it's in God's word, the bible. How do we know? The bible says so.

Figure. 1

Claims that religious truth can withstand any scrutiny are common. Depending on one's particular slant, this can be either a defensive or offensive bit of rhetoric. However, when put to the test, religiosity often finds itself backed into a corner without an explanation. Whatever the matter under review is, contrary evidence sends believers running to the comfortable haven of faith, wherein they cling to their belief, confident that the real proof (that which was not made up by the Devil) will be revealed to them when the time is right. However, when even minute facts exist, they become unshakable evidence of the divine and any disagreement is heresy (see Figure. 1).

 But what if we got a fact wrong?

There's an old joke about a Cardinal at the Vatican who goes into the archives to do some research. He's found hours later weeping over an ancient text. The Legate that finds him asks what's wrong, to which he morosely responds, "It said 'celebrate'".

It's a cute story that pokes fun at the doctrinal celibacy of the Catholic clergy, but it clearly illustrates that a widely held belief, no matter how central to a faith, could be subject to revision. In this particular instance, there are many liturgical reasons why priests are to remain celibate. However, the fact of church politics is that priests who were allowed to marry passed on estates to their legitimate heirs. Celibate priests with no heirs reverted their estates to the church. Celibacy for the sake of Christ had nothing to do with it.

This brings us to Ockham's Razor, which originated, ironically, with Franciscan friar William of Ockham. He was a logical man who had a strong faith in God. Even so, he insisted that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Scientists adopted this in the centuries that followed to explain that simplicity was necessary for an honest examination of a theory.

Austrian physicist Ernst Mach coined the Principle of Economy, in which "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." In his version, no distinction could be drawn between something that you could not perceive and something that did not exist. In other words, if there is no way to observe a thing, it can have no bearing on your findings. In a religious application, divinity cannot be the basis for the assumption of fact.

Why do I mention this? Well, it's simpler than this preamble would have you believe.

Jehovah's Witnesses have a belief that Jesus was enthroned in 1914. At that time, their faith says that Satan was confined to the earth to await Armageddon, and that human society has declined ever since. Their evidence is the rather conspicuous outbreak of World War I. Their originators had predicted, on more than one occasion, that there would be unprecedented events in a number of different years. 1914 happened to be the one time they were right.

Arriving at this date took a bit of simple math, and some creative interpretation of bible prophecy. In fact, the basis of one prophecy has to be derived from another. I truthfully don't even know where to begin with how wrong this is.

In broad strokes though, it is assumed that Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and that the prophecy would then identify 1914 C.E. as a turning point in human history. Secular research does not support this. Witnesses, as described above, retreat to two things when faced with this information.

Primarily, they question the integrity of the ancient historians Ptolemy and Borosaus, from whose records they freely accept other established dates. In fact, they are prone to answer questions with questions as proof that contradictory evidence is false.

Secondarily, they hide behind that wall of "brighter light" which requires no proof, validation, or even logic. It is a magical force field which no apostasy may penetrate. It is ignorant of reality. Period.

The truth of the matter is that there is far more evidence to support 587 B.C.E. as the date of Jerusalem's overthrow by King Nebuchadnezzar, and to say otherwise is to violate Ockham's Razor. The point of the Razor has always been to cut away unnecessary criteria, assumptions, and scotoma which blind us from reality. 1914 is far simpler than what Witnesses believe it to be. However, stubbornly clinging to proofs that cannot be found, or observed, they pervert the nature of truth. For a people so adamant about preserving and disseminating truth, their avoidance of it is ironic.