Where the analogy fails for me is that religion is based on some set of axioms that is accepted by a faith, not universal; language is something that every human acquires as it is part of our circuitry. One can have language without religion. One cannot have religion without language.
There is also a question of the distinction between a religion and a cult. I would be curious to learn how Prof. Aslan would characterize the difference. The implications for society are enormous: religions are afforded a form of credibility based on leap of faith. Cults, whatever they are, are not. What makes something a religion instead of a cult other than quantity of people who have been taught to adhere to that leap of faith?
Where the analogy fails for me is that religion is based on some set of axioms that is accepted by a faith, not universal; language is something that every human acquires as it is part of our circuitry. One can have language without religion. One cannot have religion without language.
There is also a question of the distinction between a religion and a cult. I would be curious to learn how Prof. Aslan would characterize the difference. The implications for society are enormous: religions are afforded a form of credibility based on leap of faith. Cults, whatever they are, are not. What makes something a religion instead of a cult other than quantity of people who have been taught to adhere to that leap of faith?