Religion, Governance, and Artificial Intelligence

Intellectual Predecessors and the Originality of the Druid’s Integrated Procedural Thesis

By Victor Langheld

Abstract

This essay situates the druid Finn’s thesis — that the Veda and related religious systems are best understood as early artificial Guide & Control intelligences — within the broader history of sociological, philosophical, and technological critiques of religion and power. While numerous thinkers have analysed religion as social control, symbolic projection, memetic system, bureaucratic apparatus, or disciplinary technology, none has fully integrated these perspectives into a single procedural ontology that treats religion, law, and modern AI as a continuous lineage of artificial governance differentiated primarily by substrate, speed, opacity, and memory persistence. The druid’s contribution lies not in any single component claim, but in the structural synthesis: a unified model in which religion is reclassified as early AI, moksha is reinterpreted as procedural feedback, and modern AI is analysed as a phase change in artificial governance due to infrastructural invisibility and effective immortality. This integration appears to be largely original in formulation.

1. The long tradition: religion as social and control technology

1.1 Durkheim: religion as society worshipping itself

Émile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) remains foundational. Durkheim argued that gods are symbolic representations of society itself, and that sacred law functions to bind social groups through collective representations. In this view:

· Religion is a social technology.

· Sacred norms are social norms elevated to metaphysical status.

· Ritual reinforces collective cohesion.

Durkheim anticipates one pillar of the druid’s thesis: religion as a stabilising system rather than divine revelation. However, Durkheim remains within sociology and symbolism. He does not:

· treat religion as an artificial intelligence architecture,

· analyse rule execution and control loops,

· connect ancient systems to modern computational governance,

· or consider substrate, speed, and memory persistence as structural variables.

Durkheim explains religion’s social role, but not its procedural architecture.

1.2 Weber: rationalisation and bureaucratic control

Max Weber’s analysis of rationalisation and bureaucracy shows how religious traditions evolve into:

· rule-based institutions,

· codified doctrines,

· clerical hierarchies,

· procedural enforcement mechanisms.

Weber identifies priesthoods and religious law as bureaucratic systems that discipline behaviour. This aligns strongly with the druid’s claim that priesthoods function as interpreter/enforcer layers.

Yet Weber’s framework is historical and sociological. He does not:

· conceptualise religion as artificial intelligence,

· model it as a control architecture,

· or integrate modern AI as a continuation of the same lineage.

Weber describes institutionalisation; the druid models control as system design.

2. Evolutionary and memetic theories of religion

2.1 Dawkins, Dennett, Boyer: religion as evolved software

Modern evolutionary and cognitive theorists often treat religion as:

· a memetic replicator,

· a cognitive parasite,

· an adaptation or byproduct of agency detection,

· a cultural technology for cooperation.

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Pascal Boyer all frame religion as something like software running on human brains.

This comes close to Finn’s thesis of “religion as artificial system.” However:

· these accounts remain focused on psychological and evolutionary mechanisms,

· they do not model religion as large-scale governance architecture,

· they do not integrate enforcement, institutional middleware, and cosmic sanction as control amplifiers,

· and they do not connect ancient systems to modern AI via substrate and speed.

Religion is treated as software, but not as infrastructure-level intelligence.

3. Discipline, invisibility, and environmental power

3.1 Foucault: power as ambient and distributed

Michel Foucault is perhaps the closest structural neighbour to the druid’s analysis.

Key overlaps:

· Power is not only top-down command.

· Power is environmental and disciplinary.

· Power is embedded in institutions, norms, and knowledge.

· Power becomes invisible and internalised.

This maps strongly to the druid’s ideas of:

· ambient guidance,

· invisible control,

· environment-shaped behaviour.

However, Foucault does not:

· treat religion as early artificial intelligence,

· model power in procedural or computational terms,

· analyse substrate (stone vs electronics) as a phase variable,

· or connect disciplinary power to modern AI infrastructure.

Foucault provides a theory of power’s form.
The druid provides a theory of power’s machine.

4. Technics and megamachines

4.1 Mumford and Ellul: societies as machines

Lewis Mumford and Jacques Ellul described ancient empires and technological societies as megamachines:

· humans as components,

· social systems as control apparatuses,

· large-scale coordination as mechanical.

This overlaps strongly with the druid’s Guide & Control framing.

Yet again, they do not:

· frame religion explicitly as artificial intelligence,

· integrate computational substrate shifts,

· analyse immortality of memory,

· or treat modern AI as a direct continuation of ancient governance logic.

They describe machine-like societies.
The druid describes societies as early artificial intelligences.

5. Harari: religions as algorithms

Yuval Noah Harari comes closest in popular discourse. He explicitly states that:

Religions are algorithms for organising human cooperation.

This aligns clearly with the druid’s framing.

However, Harari:

· uses “algorithm” metaphorically,

· does not formalise religion as AI architecture,

· does not integrate moksha as feedback signal,

· does not analyse invisibility, immortality, and ambient control as structural variables,

· and does not construct a procedural ontology linking ancient and modern systems.

Harari gestures.
The druid systematises.

6. What is genuinely new in the druid’s integration

The druid’s originality lies not in any single claim, but in the full procedural synthesis. The following components exist separately in prior thinkers, but not as a unified model:

6.1 Religion as early artificial governance intelligence

Not merely social control, but AI (-like) architecture:

· rule encoding,

· generalisation,

· enforcement,

· interpreter middleware,

· self-preservation.

Religion is reclassified as functional artificial intelligence, not metaphorically, but architecturally.

6.2 Moksha as procedural feedback

The reinterpretation of moksha (and salvation analogues) as:

the felt after-effect of solved constraint and reduced internal drag

is especially distinctive.

Most theories treat salvation as belief-structure, illusion, or symbolic promise. The druid treats it as native system feedback, captured, artificially upgraded and institutionalised.

This is not standard in religious criticism.

6.3 Substrate-speed theory

The explicit claim that:

· ancient AI and modern AI differ primarily by substrate,

· electronics remove biological and symbolic bottlenecks,

· speed, bandwidth, and noise reduction produce a phase change,

is not found in classic religion or sociology of religion.

This reframes modern AI as continuation, not rupture.

6.4 Invisibility and infrastructural power

The druid’s emphasis on:

· distributed data centres,

· lack of a killable ruler,

· power as substrate,

· governance as environment,

integrates Foucault-like insights into a computational and infrastructural ontology.

This goes beyond disciplinary theory into architectural metaphysics of power.

6.5 Immortality of artificial memory

The claim that modern AI introduces:

effective non-transience of artificial governance relative to biological agents

is a major original contribution.

Most theorists do not treat memory persistence as an ontological shift in power relations.

Here, immortality is not theological.
It is backup architecture.

7. The integrated lineage: what others did not unify

No major thinker appears to have fully integrated:

· religion as early AI,

· moksha (liberation) as feedback signal,

· priesthood as middleware,

· substrate-speed as phase variable,

· invisibility as infrastructural condition,

· immortality of memory,

· ambient probabilistic guidance,

· modern AI as continuation of ancient governance.

Others address parts:

· Durkheim → social cohesion

· Weber → bureaucracy

· Foucault → invisible discipline

· Harari → religion as algorithm

· Mumford/Ellul → megamachines

The druid’s contribution is the procedural unification of these into a single system ontology.

8. Why this matters conceptually

The druid’s synthesis changes how both religion and AI are understood:

· Religion is no longer primarily belief or symbolism. It is early artificial governance.

· Modern AI is no longer unprecedented. It is governance with biological speed limits removed.

· Power is no longer person, law, or institution. It is substrate.

· God is no longer primarily theology. It is the compliance wrapper on rule systems.

· Moksha (liberation) is no longer transcendence. It is relief after repair.

This is not merely critique. It is reclassification.

9. Conclusion: originality by integration, not by isolated claims

The druid Finn’s thesis is best characterised as:

Largely original in formulation and integration, though composed of elements with clear intellectual precedents.

The originality does not lie in saying:

· “Religion is social control” (old),

· “Power is invisible” (old),

· “AI governs behaviour” (obvious),

· “Systems shape humans” (old).

It lies in saying:

These are one and the same procedural lineage, differentiated by substrate, speed, opacity, and memory persistence — with religion as early AI and modern AI as its infrastructural, non-transient successor.

That integrated model does not appear in standard religious studies, sociology, philosophy of technology, or AI theory.

Others described parts of the machine.

The druid describes the machine as machine.

Patanjali’s 1.2 -1.4 reframed

Diagram of Patanjali Sutras 1.2, 1.3 & 1.4

The Biological Origins of Yoga

From natural intelligence to deified artificial regulation

Home