Reflecting on Atheism.

[genkaus]

And as I explained above, the shoe doesn't fit at all. Because the Asian traditions, Roman traditions are not predicated on beliefs. Sure there are Indians with certain beliefs when it comes to their "gods", but belief is irrelevant to continuing a tradition.

And as I explained above - you are wrong. Asian and Hellenistic traditions are predicated on beliefs. Without the belief in Hera, you wouldn't sacrifice a calf for her, nor consult her oracle. Without believing that the Ganges is sacred, you wouldn't travel miles just to take a dip. Traditions without belief don't last long. In fact, belief is the only reason why many Hindu traditions are still alive.

But there's a much bigger problem at stake; you can't solve the problem of what religion is by providing definitions. Because definitions don't allow of counterexamples and there are no constraints when it comes to definitions. You can give whatever definition you like. So each person gives a definition according to his/her assumptions and pre-conceived notions. No one is under any compulsion to modify their definition.

What are you blathering about? Ofcourse you can solve the problem of "what religion is" by providing definitions. The examples, counter-examples and constraints are simple - the definition must be able to currently identify what are commonly regarded as religion and there shouldn't be any mus-identifications, such as calling a philosophy a religions. And everyone is under the compulsion to modify the definition - to fit the popular view.

On the other hand, a theory about the phenomenon of religion would have certain implications/consequences. If these consequences are falsified, the theory gets refuted as well. Exactly this feature is missing. We are unable to test for the presence or absence of religion using our current explanations. We cannot spell out the what the implications would be if religion is absent.

If there is a phenomena (religion) that exists in this world, then we need to have a theory that describes the structure of that phenomena. Such a theory must be testable, falsifiable. It must also be able to predict empirical consequences. Only then can we even begin saying that something or the other is an example of that phenomena. A definition is not a theory.

Here's a theory for you:

The characteristics given above are the identifying features of any religion. You can test it by seeing if all the known religions fit the bill. You can falsify it by showing a known religion that doesn't fit or a known non-religion fitting. And you can predict whether or not a new phenomenon is going to be considered a religion.