More on The Atheist Delusion

My classmate Jason had some good comments in my recent post on The Atheist Delusion that I thought I should respond to:

First - I haven't read the book and don't know or care what Richard Dawkins in particular has to say. But here are a couple lines from Easterbrook's review (the New Republic), and the way I would respond to them:

Set aside whether or not God exists: it is factual that religion is at the core of much of the world's philanthropy.

It is also factual that religion is at the core of the moral justification of philanthropy, i.e., religious doctrine is why philanthropy, i.e., altruism, is viewed as so darned wonderful, whereas trade is viewed as nothing special. So, great, religion leads people to sacrifice instead of trade - religion is also why those people think that's a good thing. If trade is actually better than sacrifice, religion has created not a benefit but instead a double whammy.

Religion leads to sacrifice, true, but I hardly think it is more opposed to trade than any other belief system. I'll speak for Christianity specifically since I have much more background to do so. Christians believe in loving your neighbor as yourself. No argument there. If more Christians understood how market mechanisms benefited society, I'd expect you'd have huge support for free trade from Christians because of and not despite this belief. That's a big part of what got me interested in economics -- wanting to better understand and teach others about the beneficial effects of voluntary exchange, free trade, and economic growth and their ability to improve the lives of billions. Is there any evidence that Christians are more anti-market than any other group in the US? I doubt it. If anything, I'd expect their emphasis on individual responsibility to lead them to be more pro-market than average. It's an interesting question. I'll have to look at the General Social Survey and see if I can find out any info on that.

If Christians (and others) don't fully understand the beneficial power of the market, is that because of their own failure or is it the failure of economists to explain it to them? Bryan Caplan has research implying that the general public is economically illiterate [PDF]. I don't see any connection between this and altruistic or religious belief.

I'd also emphasize that religion provides a system of morality that it is unclear that non-religious institutions can provide. As I argued in a previous post, without a moral foundation, I don't think markets can flourish. Hayek and Buchanan both share that view and fear religious decline in the Western world. (Both men are non-religious.) To dismiss the beneficial effects of religion is to dismiss some of the greatest impacts religion has had. Markets cannot emerge without a stable rule of law and strong property rights. Christianity (and other monotheistic religions) support both of these.

I'd also question the characterization of altruism and markets as substitutes in competition with each other. I'd argue that they may in fact be compliments. I suspect living in a market-based meritocracy would be far more palatable to the poor if there was strong altruism among the more wealthy than otherwise. The US is simultaneously the most market-based economy and the most altruistic nation. I don't think this is coincidence. It would be a fascinating study to explore if there is any causation in this correlation.

Jason continues with a quote from Easterbrook's review and his own commentary:

Millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims do not believe God is an angry Absolute, do not believe tsunamis and wars are "God's will," do not wish ill to other faiths, do not have any problem with natural selection theory--but still look up in wonder at the night sky and dream there may be so much more to existence than just scurrying about the streets of our little world. The God Delusion ignores believers who think this way, because they cannot be used as straw men.

There is a very good reason to focus on fundamentalism (and to call it alone "religion") and ignore deism. The reason is that deism has no content, or at least none that has any implication for life on earth. If deism is "religion", and therefore "religion" means that you "look up in wonder" and ponder the nature of the universe, then "religion" is actually science. Contrast this with Islam or Christianity or Judaism, i.e., actual religions, all of which have specific teachings about the world: "if you have two coats, give to him who has none"...or was it "teach the man to fish"? Confusing. Anyway, it's only religions with content, with specific teachings, that have real-world effects -- so that's what we should be concerned about when we talk about "religion" and that's where the focus in the study of religion should be placed.

Easterbrook is not talking about Deists, but about people of deep religious faith. Again, I'll focus on Christianity here since that's what I have the background to discuss. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and that God is a angry at sin but also that he is a loving, gracious and merciful God. To not understand this is to not understand Christianity. Within this core set of beliefs, there is a remarkable heterogeneity of opinions on many things -- both theological and otherwise. Most Christians I know bear no ill will towards people of other religions, but do share a desire for them to become Christian. From their perspective, they do that because they wish them the utmost good, not harm. Christians believe that when someone becomes a Christian, that person is saved from spending an eternity in hell. As Jane Galt wrote in her post on "Evangelical Atheists" (EA's):

I find that EA's, not fundamentalists, seem to be the undisputed champions of arrogant, intolerant, pig-headed religious boorishness. The fundamentalists who so earnestly tried to bring me into the fold were, after all, just trying to save me from an awful eternity in hell. The EA's are trying to save people from wasting two hours on Sunday morning. And no fundamentalist I've ever met has ever been so thoroughly oblivious to the possibility that they might be wrong.

To typify Christians in the way Dawkins does is much worse than taking examples of economists who support the minimum wage and saying they represent all economists.