Religion is an evolving family-resemblance package, not a natural kind

Evidence

First, religion is a family resemblance construct, not a natural kind category; therefore no necessary or sufficient features are needed or expected. Second, the argument rooted in cultural evolution specifies the particular combination of elements that coalesce as a result of increasing social scale over time and across groups. In other words, the package of traits that gets labeled religion shares recurrent features, but also this package evolves, taking different shapes in different groups and at different historical times. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 635

Categorization

• XREF: Defines religion in the same cultural-evolutionary terms Norenzayan uses throughout; supports the reader’s analytical bridge because the fumi-e ritual targets specific evolved elements (moralizing gods, solidarity displays) rather than religion-as-abstract-category. — connects to: Religious belief is a by-product of cognitive predispositions, not an evolved adaptation — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 357; The religion-morality link is a recent cultural invention, not an ancient universal; Religion bundles separable traits whose conflict roles must be disaggregated (+3 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 635

Broader Connections

• Religion bundles separable traits whose conflict roles must be disaggregated #expands (0.95)
• Ordinary cognition, not special modules, produces religious beliefs #expands (0.80) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 44
• Attributing every social characteristic to religious texts erases contextual factors #corroborates (0.72) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 123