I don't think that's quite the same thing, though. Yes, we might have 'made up' social structures, but in many cases I think they have been based on observable differences between groups of humans, that we have then labelled, and those labels have grown more and more important until they are how we define ourselves. And they may have started out as fairly arbitrary but by their nature they become important. There are anatomical, physiological differences between male and female, which have then been genderised (don't think that's a word - never mind), and become man and woman, with different social rules. Just because we as humans invented the distinction doesn't mean that we may or may not exist. By this parallel, believing is enough to make true, which kind of implies that people needed to believe before God could be made true.
And to be honest, I don't think that belief in God is as rational as no belief in God. Because that implies, in the absence of any proof either way, that one is prepared to believe in the existence of absolutely anything to the same extent that one is prepared to believe that it might not exist. Unicorns. Vampires. Super-intelligent shades of the colour blue. And I think probable disbelief (always with the option of being wrong) until one is given some indication that this may-or-may-not *does* exist, is more rational than assuming all the may-or-may-nots *do* exist until proved to the contrary. Since it's rather difficult to prove conclusively the non-existence of something, and presumably easier to prove that something *does* exist, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who claim it exists?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-28 03:11 pm (UTC)And to be honest, I don't think that belief in God is as rational as no belief in God. Because that implies, in the absence of any proof either way, that one is prepared to believe in the existence of absolutely anything to the same extent that one is prepared to believe that it might not exist. Unicorns. Vampires. Super-intelligent shades of the colour blue. And I think probable disbelief (always with the option of being wrong) until one is given some indication that this may-or-may-not *does* exist, is more rational than assuming all the may-or-may-nots *do* exist until proved to the contrary. Since it's rather difficult to prove conclusively the non-existence of something, and presumably easier to prove that something *does* exist, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who claim it exists?