Having spent several years in Fundamentalist and Evangelical churches and groups when I was younger, I suspect that, to paraphrase Giorgio Tsoukalos, the takeaway from those analyses is consistently:
I’m okay with religion not being logical as long as it stays in its own lane. Logic is not the only important thing about being human.
But the minute you start trying to attack science that doesn’t comport with your beliefs, I’m out.
If you admit you are not a Scotsman while living in, say, Spain, then you aren’t a Scotsman. Believing in a religion is what makes someone religious, not going through the motions.
Celebrating Christmas to enjoy being with my family despite not believing in God didn’t make me religious.
It’s my impression that this depends on the religion, and that some religions consider being an adherent of that religion to be more a matter of practicing the right practices than of believing the right beliefs.
And yet your employer will still be in hot water if he denies you the day off.
Are you saying that you have actually met any religious people who do insist that their beliefs are entirely based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning?
Yes, that’s certainly true of Judaism and, I believe, of Buddhism. Another logical difficulty of Der Trihs’ definition is that it makes it impossible to know for sure whether anyone else is “really” religious or not.
I think there are some who think it is logical, having not been exposed to, or refused to listen to, the logical refutations of various arguments about the origin of the universe. Or everything is based on what they “just know” to be true, without being bothered about asking how they know. God apparently talks to my sister in her head, according to her. How can she ignore or go against that? And how can anyone else know that it isn’t true? QED.