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