I think you’re not understanding the possibilities included in the word arbitrary. If I wake up in the morning and randomly select my green shirt to wear that’s arbitrary. If I select a green shirt with my company logo on it and wear it because it’s a required uniform at work, that’s a different *reason * but it’s still arbitrary because the companies selection of green for it’s shirts was arbitrary.
Beliefs based an interpretation of certain writings may have taken time and been done by committee but it’s still someone’s interpretation and that makes it arbitrary. Even which books were selected for the Bible are technically arbitrary even though there were certain guidelines.
It’s {depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law}
Why do certain doctrines and churches appeal to different people. It’s individual discretion. Personnel preference.
We might argue semantics and say that when my company policy made it mandatory that I wear that green shirt to work it was no longer arbitrary for me even though the original choice for a green shirt and logo was arbitrary. Maybe that means that once a law or doctrine is well established then following it is not arbitrary but I’d say choosing a particular religion and it’s doctrine seems to be.
btw I don’t believe any scholars Christian or otherwise have sufficient historical reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I really doubt there’s any empirical process involved. If you have a link to any such data I’d be interested in looking at it. So far my experiences have been that Christian scholars use what is often flawed logic on sparse data to support the belief they already held. That’s called faith and shouldn’t be confused with actual scholarship.
While that’s generally true, it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. The point is that physicists do NOT disagree simply because they are being arbitrary. Rather, they have reasons for their disagreements, based on a variety of factors – which theory they consider to be most elegant for example, as well as the presuppositions that they bring into the discussion.
To cite one obvious example, Einstein was famous for objection to quantum mechanics on the grounds that “God does not play dice with the universe.” Was his objection completely arbitrary? Absolutely not! His objection was misguided but it was not the logical equivalent of throwing darts (to borrow Q.E.D.'s phrase). Rather, he recognized that quantum mechanics would require a complete overturn of our way of thinking, and so he believed that there must be some other explanation instead.
As I said, Einstein was wrong. He disagreed with Neils Bohr on how the data should be interpreted. Does this mean that Einstein and Bohr were completely arbitrary in their beliefs on this issue? Absolutely not.
When someone is completely devoted to the unproven notion that religious believers only disagree arbitrarily – that they choose their beliefs in the same way that one might flip a coin or throw darts – one is forced to redefine the word “arbitrary” to justify that position. It’s a tactic that holds no water.
Actually I think the word arbitrary has a broader meaning than you seem to give it. You might have looked it up before you posted about it several times but it’s not too late. Here I’ll help. Note that { existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will} is only one possibility.
They sell many drinks in decaf these days. You should check it out. I have been respectful to religious people and I haven’t been hurt or killed from it. The only dangers I see are from extremist groups who think they’re only ones who can be right, and everone else is some how less then them. This includes many religious groups I admit, but it includes many others too.
No I agree they’re worth while. I want you to prove they’re the only things that are worth while.
That’s why law (jurisprudence) and religion are equally nebulous and errant. They are both based on flawed and arbitrary epistemologies. In most cases, law is the incestous sister of religion.
Then why’d you mention it? It’s relevant when you discuss it but not when I discuss it, or something?
Sure. And when there’s a battle between proponents of Theory A and proponents of Theory B, I wouldn’t expect either to back down. I’d expect one theory to gradually win out because new physicists entering the field have some non-preconceived reason for embracing it, while the other theory dies out because its proponents die out. Fifty years after the battle, one theory wins because it is better.
It’s been over 400 years since Catholics and Protestants split. Who’s winning? Can anyone?
You’re embracing one aspect of science because religion agrees with it, while ignoring another (more important) aspect of science because religion doesn’t agree with it.
I can only fall back on my “eight day” hypothetical mentioned earlier. If I started producing and distributing bibles where God rests on the eighth day, I would be in conflict with the established seventh-day dogma. Let’s assume I’m an awesome and persuasive public speaker and I convert a few thousand people to my way of thinking. Fifty years from now when I’m gone (well, two hundred - I’m an optimist) will the “seven-day” or “eight-day” theory prevail, or will both continue indefinitely without resolution?
No, personnel discretion and preference are already part of the definition of arbitrary.
Scientists have personnel preference so there can be a certain arbitrary factor to scientific theory. What we hope is that the search for truth eventually negates the arbitrary factor.
I have spiritual beliefs based on a personnel interpretations of specific experiences and my own studies. I have *reasons * and a thought process behind my beliefs but that doesn’t mean they are not arbitrary.
IMHO it’s people as a whole, within religion and without, continuing to seek the truth that will eventually sift our arbitrary notions from things more substantial and lasting.
On further musing, consider this wacky hypothetical: Relativity is forgotten. Every book written about it since 1905 (as well as whatever precursor books were leaning in that direction, everything as far back as Galilean invariance) vanishes along with all human memory of it. Every technological advance stemming from relativity vanishes.
Question: could relativity be rediscovered in the same form?
Wacky hypothetical two: Christianity is forgotten. All texts related to it vanish. All technological advances stemming from it vanish. Could Christianity be rediscovered in the same form?
personnel discretion and preference. While there are other factors involved it seems most religious beliefs and the traditions that evolve from them are based on these two.
Well, maybe I’m missing something, but I think those definitions are precisely what everyone has been pointing to in this thread. It’s personal preference, based on nothing but what sounds good to the chooser. You don’t like the jew thing with the baths and separate dishes (maybe it just doesn’t fit into your daily schedule) so you go with something less demanding of your personal time and energy. Arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of a set of religious beliefs. It’s what you personally can pencil into your daytimer.
I suppose he’d have to. All relativity would need for rediscovery would be a series of bright people building on each other’s work. Christianity, though… that calls for the big guns.
That’s an interesting fruedian way of putting it. :eek:
Jokes aside, it’s an interesting point. While mankind searches for lasting principles the law remains malleable to the preference of those in power. Religious beliefs are similar.
No, I’ll leave it to the discerning reader to determine for himself how it was used in an obviously dismissive manner in this thread. Your clarification for Kalhoun makes my point, though interestingly you think otherwise.
No, I am not going to play that game. I’m not interested in arguing Christianity versus Scientology. I am merely pointing out the self-evident observation that one could do so, whatever position one happened to hold, and that argument need not be arbitrary. You are asserting otherwise, which is silly on its face, unless we accept the unprovable base assertion of many in this thread (which I won’t repeat yet again).
I think you missed the part where I agree that beliefs are arbitrary. Including my own. Including your own as well.
It seemed that those objecting to the term were thinking of only one definition of the word that alluded to a momentary whim off no real significance. Arbitrary has a broader meaning. People have reasons for certain beliefs and religions have criteria and traditions. It’s not all momentary shallow whim, but it is arbitrary nonetheless.
If the particular choices are unacceptable, feel free to compare Christianity/Buddhism, Judaism/Scientology, or any other set. If not, the implication will just have to stand unchallenged.
How is it silly on its face? What obvious counter-explanation am I missing?
