Religious motives behind studying Economics

[asianeconomist]

I know that this thread's title entails that "controversial" is written all over this ! But, let us make an honest attempt to analyze this issue.

Firstly, in Islam for instance, knowledge is commendable as long as it brings you closer to your creator and lead to good in hereafter, and not only lead to material satisfaction. Judging by this, Economics education is only tenable if it has the ability to bring a positive gain in welfare. It is however difficult to delineate/rank the exact topics that will lead to welfare gains (for example, does behavioral economics have lesser ability to affect welfare than development economics). In that case, I believe that an honest intention is necessary i.e. I will study economics and try to use it for other's benefit as much as possible, regardless of what topic I specialize in.

However, in realistic terms, do I "honestly" believe in the back of my mind that economics can ever lead to betterment of human lives. Verily there's research that addresses important issues regarding welfare, but isn't there also a large portion of the subject that is specifically not directed towards this issue (my intention here is not to be critical about Economics, I am simply trying to describe what I see).

I have mainly discussed examples from Islam due to my relative ignorance of other religions. I would be glad to hear on this topic from other perspectives.

PS. Kindly do not take any offense from this expose. This by no means is an attempt to decide on the relative supremacy of any religion, neither do I intend to hurt anyone's religious sentiments.

[paradox3696]

I would rather like to hypothesize if there is any relationship exist between my car and economics.

Originally Posted by asianeconomist

I know that this thread's title entails that "controversial" is written all over this ! But, let us make an honest attempt to analyze this issue.

Firstly, in Islam for instance, knowledge is commendable as long as it brings you closer to your creator and lead to good in hereafter, and not only lead to material satisfaction. Judging by this, Economics education is only tenable if it has the ability to bring a positive gain in welfare. It is however difficult to delineate/rank the exact topics that will lead to welfare gains (for example, does behavioral economics have lesser ability to affect welfare than development economics). In that case, I believe that an honest intention is necessary i.e. I will study economics and try to use it for other's benefit as much as possible, regardless of what topic I specialize in.

However, in realistic terms, do I "honestly" believe in the back of my mind that economics can ever lead to betterment of human lives. Verily there's research that addresses important issues regarding welfare, but isn't there also a large portion of the subject that is specifically not directed towards this issue (my intention here is not to be critical about Economics, I am simply trying to describe what I see).

I have mainly discussed examples from Islam due to my relative ignorance of other religions. I would be glad to hear on this topic from other perspectives.

PS. Kindly do not take any offense from this expose. This by no means is an attempt to decide on the relative supremacy of any religion, neither do I intend to hurt anyone's religious sentiments.

[jeeves0923]

While it doesn't seem that economic theory directly affects welfare, what is it that the development economists use as their intuition? Where do they get their frameworks with which to work?

Any profession has the opportunity to serve the greater good. It is all in how you do it. As an academic, you will likely be serving some students. If you work in a think tank, you are probably thinking about something in the public sector.

If the field makes you happy, share that with someone else, and it will make them happy. I don't think it has so much to do with which subfield has the greatest ability to affect welfare rather which person has the greatest ability to affect welfare.

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by asianeconomist

However, in realistic terms, do I "honestly" believe in the back of my mind that economics can ever lead to betterment of human lives. Verily there's research that addresses important issues regarding welfare, but isn't there also a large portion of the subject that is specifically not directed towards this issue (my intention here is not to be critical about Economics, I am simply trying to describe what I see).

So I believe the production of all sound economic research, all else equal, weakly increases welfare, as your actions as a researcher have increased the body of knowledge in the world and allowed benevolent individuals to make more informed decisions.

If the existence of that sound research then leads individuals to make decisions that decrease welfare, I blame the offending individual, not the researcher. Similarly, if you build a sandcastle to make a child happy, and some punk knocks it over and the child starts crying, is it your fault for building the sandcastle?

[filroz]

Originally Posted by Golden Rule

So I believe the production of all sound economic research, all else equal, weakly increases welfare, as your actions as a researcher have increased the body of knowledge in the world and allowed benevolent individuals to make more informed decisions.

If you develop nuke, is its value independent on how it is used? ...I don't know, I am just asking...

[pevdoki1]

I don't see why things like increasing scientific knowledge can in any way be motivated by Christianity. I don't know much about Islam, but probably the same claim can be made for other religions, as well. Religion instructs its followers how to think, and new scientific knowledge can easily provide barriers to this (see, for example, the evolution vs. creation debate; is this an issue in Islam?).

As for observable betterment of human lives, these are in the realm of science (medical research, physics... economics to a much, much smaller extent). Actually, if you're familiar with Borges, I remember reading in one of his interviews (and I am paraphrasing here) that "before, there were no economists in Argentina, and everything was great. Now every other person is an economist or a sociologist, and the country is a shithole". The same can be said for Russia, where many Harvard et al-educated economists completely ruined the country in the early 90s. I think that most economists should stay away from trying to make things better; their goal should be to understand how things work.

I any case, I digress: my point was that religion is completely unnecessary for improving quality of life, just like it is unnecessary for morality. Though this is a separate issue, it is also not clear to me that religion can provide any true betterment at all.

A religious-minded person can justify existence of science (even a social science like economics), but if we were only concerned with religious issues, there would be no reason to study things like game theory or industrial organization. Actually, the proper thing to do in this case would probably be to live in the mountains and fast.

[eqtisadi]

I don't know how one can speak in the name of religion X. Belief tends to be very personal and even if religious institutions try to cultivate the beliefs, there are enough "streams" of religions that differ in their attitudes towards technology or science (by the way, the difference between technology and should be noticed when thinking about knowledge creation or the ability to improve lives etc).
What I can say is that sometimes religion or ideology can skew your objectivity and that's a shame. I'm trying to be open minded, but I don't know how religious that is

Here's a good job market paper about Islam, science and technology: http://ericjustin.chaney.googlepages...limScience.pdf
I haven't read it really. But this guy was hired by Harvard Econ this year, by the way.

[pevdoki1]

Originally Posted by eqtisadi

I don't know how one can speak in the name of religion X. Belief tends to be very personal and even if religious institutions try to cultivate the beliefs, there are enough "streams" of religions that differ in their attitudes towards technology or science (by the way, the difference between technology and should be noticed when thinking about knowledge creation or the ability to improve lives etc).

If we're talking about unique and truly personal beliefs, we're not really talking about religion anymore, are we? The definition of religion requires these beliefs to be shared by a number of individuals. For example, every Christian shares the belief in Mary's immaculate conception. In any case, my point was that none of the "core" Christian beliefs (i.e. ones gotten directly from the Bible) state that studying studying human behavior or building spaceships are important things to do. You're right that there are probably branches of Christianity that place great importance in science, but these branches are relatively recent developments , and they are outliers in a certain sense. For example, the Catholic Church has historically been VERY unscientific, but it recently changed its stance in regard to evolution etc. That was not due to some new religious discovery (i.e. a direct consequence of Jesus' teachings); it was its way of becoming modernized and more suited to the post-Renaissance world.

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by filroz

If you develop nuke, is its value independent on how it is used? ...I don't know, I am just asking...

A fair question. I took a "science and society" core course in college, and I had to read this book, so I thought of that. I guess my general point of view is just about any invention can be skewed or misused, and if you're in constant fear of the worst-case scenario, than there will be no progress and the standard of living will be stagnant. Same holds for economics, where some models just aren't going to work well when their base assumptions are horribly violated, and that can lead to bad decisions when using those models. I'd also add as an economist you have some degree of obligation to communicate well and make sure your models are applied correctly, that's kind of what I implicitly meant by sound research.

[israelecon]

Originally Posted by pevdoki1

If we're talking about unique and truly personal beliefs, we're not really talking about religion anymore, are we? The definition of religion requires these beliefs to be shared by a number of individuals. For example, every Christian shares the belief in Mary's immaculate conception. In any case, my point was that none of the "core" Christian beliefs (i.e. ones gotten directly from the Bible) state that studying studying human behavior or building spaceships are important things to do. You're right that there are probably branches of Christianity that place great importance in science, but these branches are relatively recent developments , and they are outliers in a certain sense. For example, the Catholic Church has historically been VERY unscientific, but it recently changed its stance in regard to evolution etc. That was not due to some new religious discovery (i.e. a direct consequence of Jesus' teachings); it was its way of becoming modernized and more suited to the post-Renaissance world.

since judaism is what i know about i can tell you that this is not true of judaism. judaism is a religion which mandates actions not beliefs. so that as long as you follow judaisms laws it isn't really that important what you believe, other than a minimum of necessary beliefs (like belief in god).