I feel you are on to something valuable here, Marcus. I thought of Terence Kealey's work on science production, in which he argues that to utilize scientific goods (research insights etc., contained in published findings etc.) you must have a competence that requires that you are actually participating in scientific research, which means that you are to some extent helping to produce scientific goods. Thus, to benefit from scientific goods you must produce scientific goods. I wouldn't say that the Kealey idea neatly fits the Tiebout/Buchanan notion of an club with excludability of the club's nonrivalrous swimming pool, but it does challenge the notion of simple free riding on scientific goods—as though a swimming pool of infinite capacity were being produced and anyone anywhere can partake without incurring any cost.
RE the use of the term "religion": I'm reluctant to use the term too widely; I try to use it only when there's theism — affirmative belief in God, in a rather full-kit sense: Something more than I require for Joy. I use "quasi-religion" for belief systems that do impinge on the higher things (i.e., the chimneys on people's being, irrespective of how high we happen to think those chimneys go), and do call political ideologies quasi-religions (including my own, as I have expounded on at libertarianism.org). But I think the "quasi-" is important and recommended it when what you refer falls short of full-kit God.
The idea that consuming science involves producing science jives with W. James' idea that a truth is part of the process of its own verification. The example he uses is an economic one. Enough people need to believe in the exchange value of a metal for it to take on that exchange value.
I opine on the boundaries of religion at the end mostly because of the strange corner I argued myself into. Yes, there probably are still differences between religions and quasi-religions but they do seem to both involve production and promulgation of true doctrine. Many definitions of religion involve believing on "faith" (by which they mean "for no reason") as opposed to science which requires reasons, which I lean against in this post.
Well, I guess Mike would say it's something that persistently achieves certain states despite obstacles. I'd prefer to think of it as an economic agent, so something with preferences, resources, and constraints, albeit in an unusual embodiment.
If the religion is defined by the ritual, it's easier to measure if it's still being followed. If it's defined by the "spirit" of the ritual, it's harder to identify how long and over what time span it persists. The liturgy is something that persistently achieves a state despite obstacles, but is Christianity?
Mike's talked about the observation in biology that survival requires change; we're very different from our evolutionary ancestors. So maybe even if a religion like Christianity changes a lot, that's consistent with the biological metaphor.
I recall reading some stuff by John Maynard Smith a long time ago, but nothing about religion.
I feel you are on to something valuable here, Marcus. I thought of Terence Kealey's work on science production, in which he argues that to utilize scientific goods (research insights etc., contained in published findings etc.) you must have a competence that requires that you are actually participating in scientific research, which means that you are to some extent helping to produce scientific goods. Thus, to benefit from scientific goods you must produce scientific goods. I wouldn't say that the Kealey idea neatly fits the Tiebout/Buchanan notion of an club with excludability of the club's nonrivalrous swimming pool, but it does challenge the notion of simple free riding on scientific goods—as though a swimming pool of infinite capacity were being produced and anyone anywhere can partake without incurring any cost.
RE the use of the term "religion": I'm reluctant to use the term too widely; I try to use it only when there's theism — affirmative belief in God, in a rather full-kit sense: Something more than I require for Joy. I use "quasi-religion" for belief systems that do impinge on the higher things (i.e., the chimneys on people's being, irrespective of how high we happen to think those chimneys go), and do call political ideologies quasi-religions (including my own, as I have expounded on at libertarianism.org). But I think the "quasi-" is important and recommended it when what you refer falls short of full-kit God.
The idea that consuming science involves producing science jives with W. James' idea that a truth is part of the process of its own verification. The example he uses is an economic one. Enough people need to believe in the exchange value of a metal for it to take on that exchange value.
I opine on the boundaries of religion at the end mostly because of the strange corner I argued myself into. Yes, there probably are still differences between religions and quasi-religions but they do seem to both involve production and promulgation of true doctrine. Many definitions of religion involve believing on "faith" (by which they mean "for no reason") as opposed to science which requires reasons, which I lean against in this post.
What do you think about the idea of religions as agents, Mike Levin style? (See the quote at the start here: https://interestingessays.substack.com/p/morality-as-high-agency-information)
The quote resonates, but could you remind me again of your definition of an agent?
Well, I guess Mike would say it's something that persistently achieves certain states despite obstacles. I'd prefer to think of it as an economic agent, so something with preferences, resources, and constraints, albeit in an unusual embodiment.
If the religion is defined by the ritual, it's easier to measure if it's still being followed. If it's defined by the "spirit" of the ritual, it's harder to identify how long and over what time span it persists. The liturgy is something that persistently achieves a state despite obstacles, but is Christianity?
Have you looked in John Maynard Smith?
Mike's talked about the observation in biology that survival requires change; we're very different from our evolutionary ancestors. So maybe even if a religion like Christianity changes a lot, that's consistent with the biological metaphor.
I recall reading some stuff by John Maynard Smith a long time ago, but nothing about religion.