Occam's Razor
So in college, in one of my classes, they taught us about this principle of reasoning called Occam's Razor. Here's what wikipedia says about it:
"Occam's razor is a principle ... used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. "
In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes."
But although this is stated time and again, I don't think the members generally know what to do with these statements. I hear a lot of people hark back to older statements made by leaders in the past that the first presidency and the twelve will never lead us astray. And yet we have a member of the first presidency openly stating in general conference that mistakes have been made because our leaders are imperfect.
"Occam's razor is a principle ... used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. "
In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
I'm a nurse. In my job, we follow a similar principle. If your patient has a fever, it's more likely to be a cold or flu than Ebola or the Black Plague. If you hear hooves, expect a horse, not a zebra. That's the basic idea.
So how does this apply to feminism and the LDS church?
We are taught over the pulpit that our leaders are imperfect. They are human, fallible, they make mistakes. In October General Conference 2013 President Uchtdorf said,
"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes."
But although this is stated time and again, I don't think the members generally know what to do with these statements. I hear a lot of people hark back to older statements made by leaders in the past that the first presidency and the twelve will never lead us astray. And yet we have a member of the first presidency openly stating in general conference that mistakes have been made because our leaders are imperfect.
This is a difficult topic. It makes people feel defensive and angry, because nuanced positions are uncomfortable and difficult. We like to be totally sure we're right, 100% certain. In Mormondom, we want to be able to say that we "know with every fiber of my being."
There are a few things that I know with every fiber of my being. I know that God is real and loves me. I know that Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer, my Lord and King. I know that Priesthood power is real and that the Book of Mormon is inspired. The rest of it I either believe or I hope will be changed or explained better in the future.
But here's where Occam's Razor comes in for me. What is more likely, that God really wants His Sons to preside over His daughters forever and eternity because it is the divinely appointed right given to men? Or that the societal and cultural norms in which the gospel was restored and the scriptures were recorded were incorporated into the church structure and assumed to be the will of God?
The latter seems much more likely to me. We cannot know exactly how much of our revelation is tainted by the "darkened glass" through which it comes. That's the beauty of a church that relies on revelation. We can receive greater light and knowledge as we are prepared to receive it. I hope to live to see those revelations received.
It sounds like you're prefabricating a framework in which woman can be ordained to the priesthood and you don't have to question your faith. And, really, even though you framed it to sound more far-fetched and complicated, the former hypothesis has fewer assumptions and, according to Occam's Razor, it should be accepted. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their homes in love and righteousness."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'm not prefabricating a framework, I'm sharing my thought process. The hypothesis that God for some unknowable reason chooses to give His sons the right to preside and not His daughters definitely has more assumptions and should be ruled out by Occam's Razor. That's why we, as Mormons like to fill in the gaps with fun little pseudodoctrines. There are entire books written about the convoluted "logic" trying to explain how God could be a just, perfect God and conveniently have the same gender biased notions that exist in a fallen world. That's why we call those "explanations" mental gymnastics. That's why our leaders ultimately admit that they don't know why men preside over women in the church. It doesn't make any sense. It's much more likely that the imperfect men that receive revelation borrowed a few assumptions from the culture of the fallen world in which they live, in my opinion. Either way, I'm willing to wait and see. This is hardly the only explanation for the gender roles in the church. I think it's the most likely.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply.
DeleteThat was kind of my point: your thought process is conclusion-based, rather than evidence-based. You are picking an outcome that you think should exist and then backtracking a thought process that makes that outcome the most logical. Hardly Occam's Razor.
Perhaps the simpler answer is God doesn't define "gender bias" the same way you do and that in having a duality of the sexes, in which one carries the Priesthood and the other doesn't, He is still a just and perfect god. Perhaps the only mental gymnastics are required by people who - to their credit - stay faithful despite having deep-rooted problems with the way the Church is run.
What I say may not be true at all and I know from experience that Church leadership is very fallible. But the explanation for this whole thing may just simply be, "It was what we thought it was." God has men bear the Priesthood and it has always been thus. Many things will be clear one day, but will test our faith this day. It is very hard to "reason out" the mind of God and it can easily lead to a destruction of faith, as we have seen. Many have tried to do so in other doctrines and have fallen away. I am always uncomfortable when missionaries off "explanations" for doctrine and practices because it tends to make the essential foundation of faith a weak one.
I have had the same thoughts. You're not alone there!
ReplyDeleteWith you, Abigayle I meant.
Delete