Would you have trouble with a scientist saying "scientists reject conspiracy theory," though? In my view, conspiracy theory (as well as many other social facts besides religion and conspiracy theory) is also "so variously conceptualized, understood, and practiced -- both temporally and geographically -- that it precludes any easy definition, and maybe any useful *universal* definition AT ALL." Indeed, it may be even harder to conceptualize and criticize conspiracy theory than religion. In the case of religion, at least there are numerous theologians, clerics, and lay leaders who intelligently discuss what they think their particular religion is and what religion in general means to them. In the case of conspiracy theory, in contrast, those who are regarded as conspiracy theorists by others do not think that what they believe and propagate constitutes a conspiracy theory and, more often than not, hotly denies that it is one (and sometimes even that there can be one). It seems to me that there is no reason why religion should enjoy a more privileged status (in terms of various truth claims that believers and non-believers make about it) than conspiracy theory. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>