That’s not what EristicKallistic said, though. Besides, your claim is most certainly not “fact,” as would be obvious to anyone who has followed debates between Catholics and Protestants, or Calvinists and Armenians, or any number of disagreements between the different denominations. They disagree for a variety of reasons – the exact interpretation of the Scriptures, for example, or even the extent of the Scriptures’ authority – but that is obviously not the same as declaring that there is no REASON for their disagreement.
A classic example is the Papacy. Catholics uphold the Papacy due to their interpretation of Matthew 16:15-19, among other reasons. Protestants argue that Catholics have misinterpreted this passage, citing other passages and the phrasing used in the Greek manuscripts. They hold very different views on this matter, but not because “they have no REASON for picking their particular beliefs.” Quite the contrary; they disagree due to both historical claims and their interpretations of the Greek text.
Remember how I complained about the broad stereotyping that’s done when criticizing religion? This is a perfect illustration thereof. In this very thread, you have religion bashers insisting that their opponents have “no REASON” for picking their beliefs – that they simply pick whatever beliefs they like. When people make these claims, it’s abundantly clear that they are spouting broad criticisms without doing their research. It’s criticism that’s based on preconceived notions, not actual fact.
As an atheist I’m perfectly willing to admit that my beliefs about goodness and beauty have no objective grounding. Both are social constructs that have meaning only within the context of human society. (Much like the fact that dollar bills are really only pieces of paper. They only have value because we collectively ascribe value to them.)
I have no trouble with religious people who view their beliefs as a collection of comfortable rituals. We all need some sort of organizing principle in our lives and if you find religion a useful framework then good for you. (My wife and I attend a very liberal temple with lots of “cultural Jews” who feel this way. They don’t believe in the literal existence of God, but they do believe that following the Torah is still a good recipe for living a satisfying life.)
The problem is when people start to believe these social constructs are literally true. A dollar bill doesn’t REALLY have any intrinsic worth, and believing that it does is a serious mistake.
You know what? If people are going to insist that religious belief is completely arbitrary, it’s up to them to prove that assertion. As things stand, you have religion bashers insisting that such belief is arbitrary and then challenging others to prove them wrong.
I’ve cited the Papacy, an example of a difference in belief that is NOT simply arbitrary. I’m not going to defend either side of that debate, as that would be irrelevant to the topic at hand. Rather, the point is that the combatants in that debate do NOT simply take sides in an arbitrary fashion. Rather, they uphold their beliefs due to their respective understandings of history and what they consider to be the most accurate interpretation of the Scriptural texts.
Ditto for the differences between Christians and Moslems, for example. Christian scholars typically believe that there is sufficient historical reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Moslems believe otherwise. Obviously, they can’t both be right, but the point remains – they are arguing based on an actual empirical process, and not because they happened to pick beliefs that they liked.
Nonsense. A scientific explanation (if it is valid) can be verified by someone else working elsewhere. How can one’s “personal feelings” translate to anyone other than that person? Sure, they can believe your feelings, but what’s the difference between a prophet who honestly believes he’s received an insight from God (and got a follower) and a con artist who says he’s received an insight from God (and got a follower). Is there any kind of test we can run to tell prophets from charlatans? We can design plenty of tests to determine if a scientific theory is useful or bogus, after all.
Doesn’t this just demonstrate how arbitrary the whole thing is? Of course, we seem to have a major stumbling block with factions dividing over what “arbitrary” means, ironically enough.
The argument is taking place within a canon that has been arbitrarily picked as the battleground.
For example, it’s possible to have an argument over whether Legolas or Gimli is the better warrior. We can scour Tolkein’s texts and come up with evidence for either position. If the evidence is strong enough for one position we can even definitively state “Gimli is superior!” and we will have a REASON for that belief.
But, that statement is only meaningful within the CONTEXT of Tolkein’s work. We can only reach that conclusion because we agree in advance on what that context is. And if Professor Tolkein had written his books differently, Legolas could just as easily have come out on top. Our choice to discuss Tolkein is arbitrary, as were the decisions Tolkein made while writing the books.
The question of whether there should be a pope or not only makes sense within the CONTEXT of Christian theology. It’s meaningless outside of the canon. Other religions are silent on the matter and we have no objective evidence to help us decide one way or another.
So, ultimately the question is really just wankery.
No you can’t. That’s the whole point. Scientific theories aren’t necessarily true either. They’re just best guesses. Take Newton gravity. It works for many things, except Mercury’s orbit. Oops. Well Relativity explains that but what about gravity on a quantum scale? Oops.
Science is a wonderful wonderful thing that enriches our lives in so many ways, but there’s no such thing as universal truth. Science is good at finding explanations to fit the available evidence, but just because Newton gravity predicts the moon’s orbit doesn’t mean it’s the whole truth. There may be things beyond it’s ability to test, or explanations beyond it’s current reach.
It’d be a boring world if everyone thought like you or me.
If I printed my own copy of Genesis but it was slightly altered from the commonly-accepted version so that God rested on the eighth day, how could anyone prove that my version was inaccurate?
The point is, you’re choosing according to what sounds good to you. Other people choose based on what sounds good to them. It’s not because your choice is any more “right” than Muhammed’s or In Choon’s. Arbitrary. Nothing more.
They’re guesses that can be disproven. Relativity didn’t demolish Newtonian physics, it refined it. Something could (and probably will) come along to refine relativity, and relativity is supported by evidence. As above, I printed a “refinement” of Genesis in which God rests on the eighth day, is it supportable by evidence? Is it disprovable by evidence?
And I’m not aware that Newtonian physics were inadequate to explain Mercury’s orbit. I’d like to see a cite for this, preferably along the lines of a document published between 1700 and 1900 which says “we took these careful observations of Mercury and found a glitch, which was independently recorded by Steve and Manny in that other observatory across town.”
This isn’t what I’m advocating. I’m okay with religion hanging around. I just want a virtual restraining order to keep it 500 yards from science and law.
Then you’ll have to forgive me because I don’t know how to make it any clearer. If a whole other religion sprouted up from my revised copy of Genesis, made up of people who felt pretty much the same as established JudeoChristians, but who firmly believed in resting on the eighth day, doesn’t this call into question the validity of both viewpoints? They contradict each other so they can’t both be true. Neither can be shown to be more likely than the other. Doesn’t that invite speculation that both are false?
You make important decisions based on these subjective social constructs. To read some posters here, doing that based on religion is like taking advice from my wife’s imaginary talking penis.
Well, yes, actually. That’s not to say one should dismiss out-of-hand an idea which is based on ambiguous data (I reject religion for many other reasons) but it does nothing to support its validity nor makes it any less arbitrary.
Of course. I know that it’s completely arbitrary that a dollar bill has value, but I still use them to buy cheese pizzas. I know that my wife and I are married only because everyone around us AGREES that we are, but I have no problem filing a joint tax return. Social facts, while not OBJECTIVELY true, can be CONTEXTUALLY true. And as long as you’re operating within the appropriate context you can treat them as facts for convenience.
And I similarly have no problem with the rare religious person who admits that his beliefs are merely man-made social constructs. It’s when he starts claiming that those beliefs have some objective reality that I start to get worried.
