(September 18, 2012 at 2:02 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Hmm, I see what you're saying. Would you agree then that the categories we place ourselves in with relation to a deity are for the most part an arbitrary detail about us?
I think it's equally arbitrary for me to state my belief in the formation of Mercury. Say there's also 3 main categories for it: A, B and C. The only difference between this and our stance on GOD is that the subject of GOD gets touched upon infinitely more on a day to day basis. At the end of the day though we could come up with hundreds of arbitrary categories where people could define their belief towards that thing.
GOD seems like an arbitrary concept to me now. I can see why science needs to allow things to possibly exist, but in practical terms 'do you believe in GOD' is just as arbitrary as 'do you believe Mercury formed by B'.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. There are two ways in which I could interpret these statements.
My first impression is that you're trying to say that the idea of god should be a non-issue. I agree. In fact, I think the only reason it is an issue at all is because some people have made it into such a big issue. For example, if the concept of god simply stopped at "created the universe" - it'd hardly come up outside academic circles. How many people do you see walking down the streets discussing the big-bang theory? It's because people insist on tying it to all the other aspects of their lives - and not just theirs but others' lives as well - that it it gets so much more attention than it deserves on it's own merit. They use this concept to try and tell you all sorts of things like what you should work for, how much should you earn, what should you do with your money, who should you love and even how should you love. Trust me, if people believed that the explanation B for the formation of Mercury implied that you should spend your time bent at the waist everytime it is in the sky, that topic would become oft-discussed as well.
On the other hand, even with the intrusive potential, the concept isn't given that much attention. Much more than it deserves, sure, but not all that much. For example, the majority of my friends and extended family wouldn't even know that I am an atheist. Why? Because the topic simply hasn't come up. We have much better things to talk about. It's only with those whom you talk to a lot that the subject is likely to come up - once the more relevant ones are done.
My second impression was that you are attributing arbitrariness to the position taken on the topic, rather than the topic itself. That is, of the three explanations posited for formation of mercury, the one chosen by a person is arbitrary and picking others would be just as valid. And similarly, picking an option out of theism and atheism is arbitrary as well. I don't think that's what you mean, because you seem smarter than that. But if you do, then no, that is not the case because, even though the practice of science requires you to provide a margin of error, choosing the position that is 99% certain over the one that is 1% certain isn't arbitrary at all.
