If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then what is the difference between a Religion, a Philosophy, a Logic, a Science, and a Testimony?
A Religion consists of a commitment. A Philosophy a Preference. A Logic and a Science extensions of perception, and Testimony a warranty of due diligence.
But then, what is the difference between a Religion of Natural Law ( transcendence, beauty, excellence, truth, agency, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets ) and a Philosophy of natural law, a logic of natural law, the science of natural law, and the testimony under natural law?
Well, I don’t see any difference other than that a religion requires a group, an oath, a ritual (cost), a mythos, and the institutional means of intergenerational persistence. Conversely, without a religion what is one’s contractual commitment to others of adherence to natural law? Without others who insures your adherence to natural law in word, display and deed?
An intellectual movement, a political movement, and a religious movement, are normatively and legally bound in the current era.
One does not debate one’s religion. One merely refuses the alternatives to it.
Therein lies our answer.
😉