Posted by tekriter
You seem to be suggesting that since different cultures all have some concept of god that this alone proves the existence of god.
This seems, at first, to be an ad populum argument. Just because a lot of people believe it does not mean it is true. Nearly 20% of americans believe Obama is a muslim. That's not even 20% true.
Your assertion that god exists across cultures is also false.
Early pre hindu peoples on the indian sub-continents during the mid second to mid first millennium BCE rejected the concept of god.
The key element of buddhism is the rejection of the notion of a god or a prime mover since around the 4th century BCE.
Many african tribes worship animals, as do the Shinto of Japan who are highly animist.
How about paganism?
There are many rational explanations for "religion" existing in many cultures. Consider that all of our brains are exactly the same in anatomy. The same organs, processes and characteristics exist across cultures.
The concept of fear and the willingness to believe would also exist across cultures.
It is not too far of a stretch to imagine early people, not understanding the dangerous world around them, would create superstitious beliefs to placidate themselves.
On top of that, no good evidence exists that there is a god of any type.
If I have misinterpreted your argument -from this and that other thread - my apologies - please clarify what you mean.
|
My argument is not so much the ad populum positive of a god as it is that disproving a particular culture's notion of god or anything else is sort of meaningless. My argument is closer to a linguistic one, in that the symbol is not the thing.
In the other thread I set down a better standard model to prove or disprove that dispenses with symbol and focuses on function. Frankly, I don't think it should matter to Christians whether Jesus existed.
My arguments that may seem to be ad populum are actually examining concepts that are similar in cultures with no contact. I wouldn't make a comparison between christian and Buddhist notions for the fact that they are both Indo-European religions and you can see the the syncretic aspects of them in their art (wet drapery, etc).
Also, so far I haven't really taken a stand one way or another, although it may seem clear which side of the fence I'm on. I have just pointed out that your "standard model" restricts you to arguing over symbols which is quite frankly sectarian and just as unscientific as what you're arguing against.
