This whole distinction seems to rest on having a mind-bogglingly wide definition of 'practice', and an exceedingly narrow one of 'belief' -- and then touting those as the principal means of systematising religion, aside from all other considerations. (And then concluding that Glorantha does it wrong, as it doesn't fit such a scheme neatly enough, seems to be the punchline.)
To take your example, surely one would be a 'hypocrite' if one _simulated_ generosity, but didn't 'feel' it, rather than simply not bothering with it at all. And this is where things get somewhat blurry -- can you 'fake' the whole Emulate Orlanth thing, without _feeling_ it? I think you can to some extent, but not with spectacular success, as a rule. And as others have noted, if you fake it long enough, you'll start to feel it, to some extent. For example, an elementary Buddhist (I think? it might have been Jaina) exercise is to 'simulate compassion'. Not for purposes of building a better hypocrite, but of actually becoming more compassionate. And since Orlanthi devotionalism gets a lot more anally detailed than just broad categories like 'generosity', but is characterised by _identifying_ with the worshipped entity (granted, in a manner that has strong ritualised aspects to it), I think it's very misleading to characterise this as being something one simply goes through the motions of, without implying anything about one's inner state.
Thus to set up a strict dichotomy between belief, equated to some sort of formalised dogma, and practice, equated to purely ritual behaviour, misses a lot in the middle, and obscures as much as it reveals, IMO.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail