THE TALEBIAN PARADOX

Perceived usefulness and actually usefulness can be different -

furthermore, if it isn't the truth of the matter then it doesn't matter -

I suppose you could make a pragmatic argument;

however Religion is overwhelmingly harmful to the rate of progress in the modern world

In the early 1600s, a certain Italian astronomer came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of the Copernican view that the Earth revolves around the sun. Galileo, himself a Catholic, was tried for heresy in 1633 by the Roman Inquisition, which forced him to recant his views and live out his days under house arrest. It wasn't until 2000 that former pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for the church's treatment of Galileo.

The church's views on evolution have themselves evolved over the years. For the first hundred years or so after Charles Darwin first put forth his theory, the church took no formal stance on evolution, though some church figures rejected it. As late as the 1950s, the church maintained a neutral position on the subject, but by the end of the 20th century the Catholic Church showed general acceptance of 'theistic evolution,' which states that God created a universe where cosmic and biological evolution occurred.

"The theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge," former pope John Paul II said in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican in October 1996. [The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)]

When it comes to reproductive issues like contraception and abortion, the Vatican has taken a consistently conservative stance. In 1968, Pope Paul VI formally rejected the use of contraception, including sterilization, in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" (On Human Life). "An act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design," the pope wrote.

To combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS, the church advocates monogamy and abstinence before marriage over the use of condoms. The church has been a world leader in providing care for victims of HIV/AIDS, but Pope Benedict XVI drew fire from health experts in 2009 when, while on a trip to Africa, he stated that condoms would worsen the AIDS epidemic.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope said of the AIDS crisis. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

In recent years, the church has taken issue with research using human stem cells, which have the ability to develop into different tissue types, making them promising for disease therapies. The church has mainly confined its opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells because of the Catholic view that life begins at conception.

''Scientific research must be encouraged and promoted, so long as it does not harm other human beings, whose dignity is inviolable from the very first stages of existence,'' Pope Benedict XVI said in June 2007, the New York Times reported.

"The main question should be what benefit can come out of stem cell research," Utkan Demirci, a stem cell researcher at Harvard University Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, told LiveScience. "The potential benefit of stem cell research is huge."

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences held a workshop on stem cell research in 2012. The event focused on the potential of induced pluripotent stem cells, which have the ability to develop into different cell types, but don't have to come from embryos.

The workshop is a good example of how the Vatican is willing to listen to scientists, said Arber (president of the academy).

Um... like the whole hanging and endless persecuting scientists for disagreeing with dogmatic all throughout history? Some going as far as completely hindering advancements for centuries? Doesn't ring a bell?

I am currently not in the mood to deal with your particular brand of "argument", since you see no need to address most of my argument, I see no need to address yours.

While Fauxlaw and Co can be a tad annoying in as so far as we disagree, at least I can tell that they consider all of my argument - you just want to [speculation about speaker's motive] set up gotchas and don't seem really interested in an actual conversation - just being right 

don't seem really interested in an actual conversation - just being right 

Do you have an example of other equally valid belief systems that did not survive?

The idea of decentralized organization has also survived but has been historically overshadowed by hierarchical authoritarian and oligarchal models.

Taoism and Confucianism would also be considered religious ideas.

Other than science and religion, both of which currently flourish,

have there ever been any other types of belief systems that no longer survive?

Perhaps Trumpism could be viewed as an oligarchal belief system that is neither religion nor science based and might benefit from the application of the precautionary principle.

have there ever been any other types of belief systems that no longer survive?

That appears to be a trick question.

I considered Taoism and Confucianism to be quasi-religions but concede that they may not necessarily be.

.........Efficiently being able to sail against the wind takes more practice and skill than any other sailing endeavor. Doing this well will enable you to sail anywhere".'....

Do you consider Animism "non-religious" (pre-religious)?

Do you consider Transcendentalism "non-religious"?

Both have elements of religion depending on the specific definition being used for each. Animism is described with the words "soul" and "supernatural". Transcendentalism describes a direct connection with "God".

Perhaps a spiritual belief with no DOGMA and no PRIESTHOOD might not qualify as a "religion"?

I mean, do you think ZEN is a "religion"?

I think that technically, it's not. I'll add that to the other non-religious belief systems you mentioned. Thanks for the examples. Yes, they all seem to have suffered survivorship bias. Given their age, however, the Lindy effect suggests they will be with us for quite a long time to come. In my opinion, they deserve at least as much consideration as any of the Abrahamic belief systems.

I mean, do you think ZEN is a "religion"?

Religion is overwhelmingly harmful to the rate of progress in the modern world.

Taleb would argue, on the basis of the precautionary principle, that religious ideas that have been useful for thousands of years (Lindy Effect), and would be better arbitrators of truth than personal rationality or new moral ideas. But at the same time, religion is only accepted because it survived, while other belief systems that would have been equally valid did not survive. How do we reconcile survivorship bias with the precautionary principle in the case of religion?

1. Precautionary Principle: a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.

2. Lindy Effect: a theory that the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things like a technology or an idea is proportional to their current age, so that every additional period of survival implies a longer remaining life expectancy. Where the Lindy effect applies, mortality rate decreases with time.

3. Survivorship Bias: the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias. [**]