Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:31:14 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:32:52 -0700, Ken Stuart <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:21:01 -0400, Brad Cooley <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
>>The context of my original message is that, in simple terms, food, methods
>>of food acquisition, and other factors affect culture which in turn
affects
>>that culture's religion.
>
>It affects the social implementation details of the religion (eg what day
of the
>week people go to collective worship), not the overall structure or
principles
>of the religion.
>
It affects whether the religion is polytheistic or monotheistic,
whether
there are sacrifices, the type of sacrifices, whether a religious
class
exists or a single shaman, etc. It affects many aspects of the
religion.
>>If "religion" is not a "set of beliefs", what is it? a set of truths? a
>>set of rules? a set of best guesses? a set of empirical observations?
>>"Religion" is a set of beliefs. "Religion" is not like the laws of
>>thermodynamics.
>
>It's certainly a set of empirical observations, just like the laws of
>thermodynamics.
>
Wrong. The laws of thermodynamics apply to all people (and things) in
the
same way. All thermodynamic systems behave according to the laws of
thermodynamics. That is why it is a law.
Christianity does not apply to all people in the same way. It does
not
apply to Buddhists or Pygmies, for example. That is why it is a
"religion"
or a set of beliefs.
I apologize to the list for this being off-topic and will refrain from
any
further responses.
Brad
|
|
|