Would you say that religions qualify as theories? — Hallucinogen

If by "theories" you mean explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work, then I don't think "religions qualify as theories".

Would you say theories among scientific theories or theories among historical theories are incompatible with each other?

They are about as "incompatible" as observational evidence and circumstantial evidence, respectively.

If your answers to these two questions aren't both "yes", what is the substantive difference between religion and theories (historical/scientific)?

Religions proselytize with fact-free myths and folk tales which do not explain any publicly accessible facts of the matter whereas, at best, "scientific and historical theories" are rigorously critical, abductive, attempts to do so.

If by "theories" you mean explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work, then I don't think "religions qualify as theories". — 180 Proof

Accepting this definition of a theory, would you say that (your best interpretation of) atheism qualifies as a theory?

Accepting this definition of a theory, would you say that (your best interpretation of) atheism qualifies as a theory? — Hallucinogen

Not at all. Atheism is only a critique and rejection of theism.

What does the critique consist of, and does it hold any assumptions?

Atheism, as I understand it, is the epistemic position that there aren't sufficient reasons, or grounds, to believe that the claims of theism are true or to trust in them. The main particulars:

• There aren't any sound arguments demonstrating that the claims of any form of theism (which also includes deism) are true.

• There aren't any publicly accessible corroborations of any "scriptural" accounts of any god or gods (or "miracles").

• There aren't any extant, ostensible, "divine" "sacred" "spiritual" or "supernatural" facts of the matter.

Atheism is only a sound criticism of theism and not itself a "theory of godless reality" (or a belief system).

But atheism would therefore seem to be, or reliant on, a theory about what is publicly accessible and about what qualifies as a sound argument. In other words the particulars would therefore consist of "explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work"?

Not theories, working assumptions (or principles). Again, atheism itself is not a "theory" because it does not explain anything.

Someone could coherently use atheism to explain why there are (on their view) no spirits or afterlife.

Sure. That mis/use, however, doesn't make atheism itself a theory.

But you said that theories are "explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work".

And your point is –?

You agreed that atheism can be used to explain a particular state of affairs and you said theories are "explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work". Unless there's a distinction I'm missing, that seems to place atheism within the definition of a theory.

:roll: Words used in a theory doesn't mean that those words are theories.

Words used in a theory — 180 Proof

By this, you mean atheism?

Their view seems to amount to thinking that there can be no common framework that would provide the pathway of reasoning to a "correct" answer with regards to religious questions. In other words that religious disputes cannot be solved because there's no reliable source of reason for solving them? It seems to be a view a lot of atheists and agnostics have. — Hallucinogen

I think you will find most religions have a common thread under/through them. It may be simple, basic but it is there. There are several concepts that parallel across all religions. God is not one of them.

Not all religions have a godhead. Taoism speaks in favour of flow of nature that is ultimately not reducible to human language/description.

I think religions as well as science are all fundamentally reconcilable with one another for a simple reason - they all study/ponder reality - it's origin and it's nature. Some features of every religion are more or less accurate than others in a reconcilable logical/rational framework. Science also has its limitations in areas spirituality does not - like an explanation for irrationality, love, ethics/morality and intuition.

In essence the reconcilability of the study of the universe as "self/conscious" (spirituality) and the study of the universe as an inanimate object (science) are divided by the hard problem. Where does self end and inanimate substance begin?

Hello Hallucinogen!

Interesting OP, and I have already seen that some other users commented on mythology. This is what came to my mind firstly. Nevertheless, I think we cannot consider mythology or polytheism as religious diversity. Yes, they do have different deities representing their beliefs, but with a common "root" and excluding the rest of the groups who were different from them.

What I know as a school with religious diversity is the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo in Spain.
Its many works of art and architecture are the product of three major religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It was called "La Convivencia", It claims that in the different Moorish Iberian kingdoms, the Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in relative peace.

Convivencia: "living together"

Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other? — Hallucinogen

I don't think that this is a question of doctrine. That religions are disjunct from each other is a fact. Even sects within religions are sometimes isolated from each other and their mother religion/church.

How can one reconcile Christianity with Hinduism or Islam or even Judaism?
There have been even religious wars carried out between two denomications. People have been persecuted because of their religion or even their religious beliefs. Even in these days there are ethno-religious enmities with the same countries themselves and not between two but more religions. (E.g. Bosnia)

On the other hand, there is an effort for the protection of religious freedom and human rights in general, made by conventions under the UN of representatives of major religions --Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Religiious freedom automaticall ends enmities among religions as well as persecution by governments and churhes. These and similar conventions and movements are the closest I can think of about arriving at a reconciliation between religions ...

How can one reconcile Christianity with Hinduism or Islam or even Judaism? — Alkis Piskas

They all believe in spirits and the afterlife.

:gasp:
Come on, seriously now ...

I think you will find most religions have a common thread under/through them. — Benj96

I agree.

There are several concepts that parallel across all religions. God is not one of them. Not all religions have a godhead. Taoism speaks in favour of flow of nature that is ultimately not reducible to human language/description. — Benj96

Indeed, but the implication we could take from this is that religions that aren't reconcilable, aren't so because they reject a feature of reality whereas the others don't. God might be that feature of reality.

I think religions as well as science are all fundamentally reconcilable with one another for a simple reason - they all study/ponder reality — Benj96

Correct.

In essence the reconcilability of the study of the universe as "self/conscious" (spirituality) — Benj96

I believe it is.

Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other? — Hallucinogen

I'm not sure if this gets directly at what you are asking for, but "religious particularism" is a relevant term with "ecumenicalism" having somewhat the opposite meaning.

I'm not sure if this gets directly at what you are asking for, but "religious particularism" is a relevant term — wonderer1

Thanks, it seems to be a variant of exclusivism.

with "ecumenicalism" having somewhat the opposite meaning. — wonderer1

Yes it's a form of reducible plurality, the view that I hold.