Source: Original Site Post

RELIGION IS A TECHNOLOGY. WE DONT NEED TO PROVE IT”S TRUE. JUST JUDGE ITS EFFECTS (GOOD AND BAD) by Frey Harman (edited for clarity) What we need to do is disprove this idea of needing to prove things. [CD: Or claim religion is ‘true’ rather than effective and quite possibly necessary.] Religion is a technology. Technology either works or it doesn’t. Science can’t do anything to technology except explain it. If we demarcate science from technology, science seeks general rules of the universe – to understand. Technology is usually developed by trial and error to serve a purpose – to act. And, [psychlogial and social] technology isn’t even based on science, nor informed by science. Often, technology outpaces science. I’m not sure why philosophy would have any more to say about the matter of religion as a technology than science does: regardless of whether it’s true or what general rules religions follow, the technology works or doesn’t, and works beneficially or harmfully. Nassim Taleb was somewhat influential in snapping me out of the false dichotomy between atheism and monotheistic fundamentalism – making me realize they’re two sides of the same coin; two interpretations derived ultimately from the same error. The error of taking things too literally. —“When someone discusses religious beliefs, he does not necessarily mean belief in the epistemic sense, and the relevance of the epistemic sense of the term decreases the further back ones goes in the fixation of the creed. Rather, such notions are rather closer to the root of “belief”: beloved, a sense of commitment, something related to the notion of trust. It is not coincidental that “credere” is related to letter of credit or financial transactions that entail trust (see Armstrong 1994; Boyer 2001). …. Accordingly it is an extremely naive interpretation to think that religious ‘beliefs’ map to the ‘justified true belief’ standards of modern epistemology (see Ichikawa and Steup 2014); it is naive to examine the supernatural aspect of religion as anything but epiphenomenal. One needs to think of religious ‘belief’ as closer to a form of trusting, as a form of action, or a willingness to take action, and, most crucially of all, as a set of interdicts upon action. Further, religion establishes a categorical demarcation between sacred and profane, and one that cannot be violated (see Eliade 1959). The sacred is not open to ‘rationalization’ what we don’t understand is not necessarily irrational, and it might have reasons that can be probed only across generations of experience and experimentation.”— Taleb

By CurtD Great quote. This is correct. I state the same thing in economic language: by Belief (love, trust, respect, submission of self), religion (debt performance, oath), and anthropomorphisms (systems of measurement, choice, in payment of debt, in exchange for love and respect) provide the most intuitive system of behavior manageable by man. So as usual, Taleb is less ‘scientific’ and more ‘literary’ than I am.

RELIGION IS A TECHNOLOGY. WE DONT NEED TO PROVE IT”S TRUE. JUST JUDGE ITS EFFECTS (GOOD AND BAD) by Frey Harman (edited for clarity) What we need to do is disprove this idea of needing to prove things. [CD: Or claim religion is ‘true’ rather than effective and quite possibly necessary.] Religion is a technology. Technology either works or it doesn’t. Science can’t do anything to technology except explain it. If we demarcate science from technology, science seeks general rules of the universe – to understand. Technology is usually developed by trial and error to serve a purpose – to act. And, [psychlogial and social] technology isn’t even based on science, nor informed by science. Often, technology outpaces science. I’m not sure why philosophy would have any more to say about the matter of religion as a technology than science does: regardless of whether it’s true or what general rules religions follow, the technology works or doesn’t, and works beneficially or harmfully. Nassim Taleb was somewhat influential in snapping me out of the false dichotomy between atheism and monotheistic fundamentalism – making me realize they’re two sides of the same coin; two interpretations derived ultimately from the same error. The error of taking things too literally. —“When someone discusses religious beliefs, he does not necessarily mean belief in the epistemic sense, and the relevance of the epistemic sense of the term decreases the further back ones goes in the fixation of the creed. Rather, such notions are rather closer to the root of “belief”: beloved, a sense of commitment, something related to the notion of trust. It is not coincidental that “credere” is related to letter of credit or financial transactions that entail trust (see Armstrong 1994; Boyer 2001). …. Accordingly it is an extremely naive interpretation to think that religious ‘beliefs’ map to the ‘justified true belief’ standards of modern epistemology (see Ichikawa and Steup 2014); it is naive to examine the supernatural aspect of religion as anything but epiphenomenal. One needs to think of religious ‘belief’ as closer to a form of trusting, as a form of action, or a willingness to take action, and, most crucially of all, as a set of interdicts upon action. Further, religion establishes a categorical demarcation between sacred and profane, and one that cannot be violated (see Eliade 1959). The sacred is not open to ‘rationalization’ what we don’t understand is not necessarily irrational, and it might have reasons that can be probed only across generations of experience and experimentation.”— Taleb

By CurtD Great quote. This is correct. I state the same thing in economic language: by Belief (love, trust, respect, submission of self), religion (debt performance, oath), and anthropomorphisms (systems of measurement, choice, in payment of debt, in exchange for love and respect) provide the most intuitive system of behavior manageable by man. So as usual, Taleb is less ‘scientific’ and more ‘literary’ than I am.