Neither. Or both. Was about the “Keeping our belief system to ourselves will lead to tribalism” statement. so… not sure what you meant with “religion as infrastructure”, and “preaching” is often more than just “advertising”.
That might be a misleading argument.
You are also talking about a time where people were being tortured violently to convert.
So perhaps “People simply wanted to be alive” might be a better statement, since in so many cases the only options were “convert or die” (often under torture).
I’m sorry, but not sure if I understood your point…
The issue I see with that approach is that:
If Philosophy is “the cooking method”, then what about people who discard philosophy and ethics in favour of tradition and moral?
The implied conclusion is that they would no longer be able to cook. Therefore having only raw, subpar meals?
That sounds quite judgemental.
I do believe philosophy is essential for human growth, but can’t state that whomever would not approach life through philosophy leads an inferior life.
And similarly, if “Religion is how you eat”, then would that mean that people without a religion do not eat?
And that would be dangerous.
Because once you have an agreed upon kitchen, then said kitchen is subject to rules, inspections and scrutiny.
People can no longer do things as they please, because now they must follow the facilities about how to engage with such facilities. If not because “the priest said so”, then most likely because the same institutions that recognise said phony church will now put a lot more pressure into regulating it.
Not to mention attention drawn from other “restaurants” that will recognise your kitchen as empty and will become a thorn in your ass…