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