Category: Religion
*Marketplace of the Gods*
The author is Larry Witham and the subtitle is How Economics Explains Religion. It's a good book, and my favorite passage was this:
[Larry] Iannaccone was born in Buffalo into a family of Italian immigrants. Earlier in the century, the family had broken from Catholicism to join a dissenting branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which itself had splintered off from the early Adventists. It was rich American church history, and young Iannaccone had a front-row seat on the sectarian religious experience for eighteen years of his life. Still, his father had a Columbia University Ph.D. in education. He was a "wandering academic," who went to jail as a conscientious objector, set up summer church camps, and taught at several universities. The family ended up at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Laurence went off to Stanford to study mathematics. Then in 1977 he headed for Chicago, considering pure mathematics but not exactly enthused. Looking for alternatives, he had an interview with James Coleman, the noted sociologist. Coleman said that sociology was in utter disarray: "You should think in terms of economics," he advised. "Rational-choice economics."
Beware some markets in everything
Whenever you see an "investigator" charge patients to undergo an experimental protocol, be very very wary. Be very, very afraid. In general, with very few exceptions, reputable medical researchers do not charge patients to undergo experimental protocols; their studies are funded with grants from the government, private foundations, or pharmaceutical companies.
That is Orac on Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate; hat tip goes to Steve Silberman on Twitter. Steve also links to this article about a recent Randian educational scam.
Why Timur Kuran is one of our most important thinkers
Timur is well-known as an economist, but his true importance remains neglected. What follows is my view of "what he achieves," not "what he intends."
Timur grew up in Ankara and Istanbul and he brings economics, rational choice, public choice theory, law and economics, and a strong knowledge of history to bear on the history and current dilemma of the Middle East.
I view Timur as our most important apologist for the history of Islam, and I mean that word apologist in the classical sense, not cynically. I am not claiming he is a Muslim (I have no idea), but rather that he has insight into Islam. He is telling us: "this stuff isn't as screwed up as it might seem to some of you. It is more like you than you probably think." Yet, like so many good apologists, you get mostly biting criticism of what he is apologizing for; he is seeking to reform the world he cherishes.
His first book Private Truth, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification (one of the best economics books of the last twenty years) is about how societies can stick with screwed up beliefs and defend them publicly, yet without everyone being evil or stupid, even if they sometimes sound as such. It has major implications for the theory of revolution, and sudden flips of opinion, yet I read it as a defense of [fill in the blank] society. His work with Sunstein on availability cascades extends the basic point of how falsehoods spread in otherwise normal environments; it applies directly to U.S. regulation also global religion.
Timur has written a great deal on how "Islamic economics," as the formal movement is known, has not done Islamic economies any great favors. It is precisely when he seems most critical of Islamic doctrines that he is doing the most repair work, by indicating another path forward.
He now has a new book out — The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East. The book explains a large part of why the Middle East and Turkey fell behind the West and law and economics has a lot to do with it. Various laws in Islamic societies were not conducive to large-scale economic structures, at precisely the time when such structures were becoming profitable and indeed essential as drivers of economic growth. This is not a book of handwaving but rather he nails the detail, whether it is on inheritance law, contracts, forming corporations, or any number of other topics.
Timur writes clearly but his understated prose doesn't hop off the page at you, no matter how good the content. He sometimes sounds small when he is in fact writing on a very large canvas. Yet the relevant unit of labor here is his career's work, not any single article or even book. I wonder if the economics profession forces on him too specialized a voice or an ill-fitting conception of what Wertfreiheit means.
Here is the final paragraph of the new book and it is one place where the larger vision peeps through more explicitly:
The good news is that the region borrowed the key economic institutions of modern capitalism sufficiently long ago to make them seem un-foreign, and thus culturally acceptable, even to a self-consciously anti-modern Islamist. These institutions can be improved, recombined, and applied to new domains creatively without opposing Islam as a religion, or even dealing with it. They can be debated essentially in isolation from public controversies over what Islam represents and its relevance to the present. Furthermore, Islamic economic history offers abundant precedents for promoting free enterprise and limiting the government's economic role. In no period has private enterprise been lacking. Widely admired empires had shallow governments that left to waqfs the provision of social welfare, education, and urban amenities. A predominantly Muslim society is not inherently incompatible, then, with an economy based on free competition, openness to borrowing, and innovation, and a government eager to support, rather than stifle, private enterprise.
[Segue to Stockholm dialogue:
T: James Buchanan is fundamentally a regional thinker. I toy with the view that most social science thinkers are, fundamentally, regional thinkers.
B: Is that good or bad?
T: It depends on the region.]
Here is Timur's home page. You can buy the new book — which I strongly recommend – here. Here is the book's home page. Here is a related podcast. Here is a video of Timur. Here is a picture of Turkey:
The career of a paper mill writer (MIE)
From one of those people who writes other peoples' term papers for a living:
I do a lot of work for seminary students. I like seminary students. They seem so blissfully unaware of the inherent contradiction in paying somebody to help them cheat in courses that are largely about walking in the light of God and providing an ethical model for others to follow. I have been commissioned to write many a passionate condemnation of America's moral decay as exemplified by abortion, gay marriage, or the teaching of evolution. All in all, we may presume that clerical authorities see these as a greater threat than the plagiarism committed by the future frocked.
The article is interesting throughout. The fellow can write a 75-page paper in two days, has never visited a library for his work, and earns far more — $66k last year — than most ostensibly professional writers.
For the pointer I thank David B.
Markets in everything
A Harrods department store in Britain has unveiled a luxury advent calendar worth 1 million dollars.
Whoever receives the calendar will also be getting Christmas gifts which include a designer kitchen, a speedboat and a pair of sunglasses made of gold.
The calendar, which has been created by Porsche Design, is one of only five available worldwide – one for each continent.
The full story is here and for the pointer I thank Allison Kasic.
No Religion, Know Religion
From a recent Pew Survey on U.S. Religious Knowledge, atheists and agnostics know more about religion than most religionists. Atheists and agnostics score particularly well on knowing something about world religions but also do better than most on Christianity. The effect remains even after controlling for education.
Take a short version of the quiz here. Graphic from the NYTimes.
Addendum: The Atlantic has a good run down on commentary. I was especially amused by religion scholar Stephen Prothero's line "those who think religion is a con know more about it than those who think it is God's gift to humanity."
Opinion warning signs
Robin Hanson makes a list of "Signs that your opinions function more to signal loyalty and ability than to estimate truth:"
- You find it hard to be enthusiastic for something until you know that others oppose it.
- You have little interest in getting clear on what exactly is the position being argued.
- Realizing that a topic is important and neglected doesn’t make you much interested.
- You have little interest in digging to bigger topics behind commonly argued topics.
- You are less interested in a topic when you don’t foresee being able to talk about it.
- You are uncomfortable taking a position near the middle of the opinion distribution.
- You are uncomfortable taking a position of high uncertainty about who is right.
- You care far more about current nearby events than similar distant or past/future events.
- You find it easy to conclude that those who disagree with you are insincere or stupid.
- You are reluctant to change your publicly stated positions in response to new info.
- You are reluctant to agree a rival’s claim, even if you had no prior opinion on the topic.
- More?
I would add: You feel uncomfortable taking a position which raises the status of the people you usually disagree with.
A new theory of monopsony, or how to bargain with trapped miners
In an effort to dominate the miners, the team of psychologists led by Mr Iturra has instituted a series of prizes and punishments. When the miners behave well, they are given TV and mood music. Other treats – like images of the outside world are being held in reserve, as either a carrot or a stick should the miners become unduly feisty.
In a show of strength, the miners have at times refused to listen to the psychologists, insisting that they are well. ''When that happens, we have to say, 'OK, you don't want to speak with psychologists? Perfect. That day you get no TV, there is no music – because we administer these things,''' said Dr Diaz. ''And if they want magazines? Well, then they have to speak to us. This is a daily arm wrestle.''
Here is more. Here is one upshot:
''NASA told us we have to receive the arrows, so that they don't start shooting the arrows at each other,'' said Dr Diaz.
''So we are putting our chests forward – now they can target the doctors and psychologists.''
In other words, don't be too nice to the miners. For the pointer I thank The Browser.
*The Tenth Parallel*
The author is Eliza Griswold and the subtitle is Dispatches from the Fault Line Between Christianity and Islam. Excerpt:
Church is no staid ritual in Nigeria; it is a carnival. One Friday night, I went to the Redeemed Christian Church of Christ at an all-night church ground with three hundred thousand other people. The figure is larger than the number of Quakers in America — the equivalent of an entire American denomination worshipping at the edge of Lagos. With no traffic, the church ground is an hour's drive from Lagos. The choir was a phalanx of thousands of young people sitting under a tent, and I wandered among them, swallowed by the rush of their voices. Most attendees would spend the night dozing in their chairs of buying peanuts and soda and tapes and T-shirts and a host of other amusements. The service started at eight. Around midnight, I left to face hours of traffic and the sizable risk of a carjacking by the bandits who freely roamed the highways, picking off tired churchgoers.
This is the book which everyone is reading, and reviewing, right now. It has good coverage of Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, and the clash between religions in those areas. I can definitely recommend it. My major complaint has to do with framing. The author reminds us that "the main fault lines are within Islam," or something like that, etc., yet if you read only this book, or for that matter its subtitle, you would come away with a different impression altogether. The very premise of the book selects for clash among the two major religions surveyed and I don't think the author quite comes to terms with this fact. She is torn by conflicting impulses to pursue her initial premise to its logical conclusion, and yet also to provide a more politically correct account than what she sees in front of her eyes.
Capitalism’s Mecca
Wow, just wow. Brad DeLong sends us to this 2001 article in Slate on the architecture of the World Trade Center.
Yamasaki received the World Trade Center commission the year
after the Dhahran Airport was completed. Yamasaki described its plaza as "a
mecca, a great relief from the narrow streets and sidewalks of the surrounding
Wall Street area." True to his word, Yamasaki replicated the plan of Mecca's
courtyard by creating a vast delineated square, isolated from the city's bustle
by low colonnaded structures and capped by two enormous, perfectly square
towers–minarets, really. Yamasaki's courtyard mimicked Mecca's assemblage of
holy sites–the Qa'ba (a cube) containing the sacred stone, what some believe is
the burial site of Hagar and Ishmael, and the holy spring–by including several
sculptural features, including a fountain, and he anchored the composition in a
radial circular pattern, similar to Mecca's.At the base of
the towers, Yamasaki used implied pointed arches–derived from the
characteristically pointed arches of Islam–as a transition between the wide
column spacing below and the dense structural mesh above. (Europe imported
pointed arches from Islam during the Middle Ages, and so non-Muslims have come
to think of them as innovations of the Gothic period.) Above soared the pure
geometry of the towers, swathed in a shimmering skin, which doubled as a
structural web–a giant truss. Here Yamasaki was following the Islamic tradition
of wrapping a powerful geometric form in a dense filigree, as in the inlaid
marble pattern work of the Taj Mahal or the ornate carvings of the courtyard and
domes of the Alhambra.The shimmering filigree is the mark of the holy. According to Oleg Grabar,
the great American scholar of Islamic art and architecture, the dense filigree
of complex geometries alludes to a higher spiritual reality in Islam, and the
shimmering quality of Islamic patterning relates to the veil that wraps the
Qa'ba at Mecca. After the attack, Grabar spoke of how these towers related to
the architecture of Islam, where "the entire surface is meaningful" and "every
part is both construction and ornament." A number of designers from the Middle
East agreed, describing the entire façade as a giant "mashrabiya," the tracery
that fills the windows of mosques.
*Agora*
I am surprised this film, set in ancient Alexandria, has not occasioned more controversy. It is the most pro-science, pro-rationalist, anti-Christian movie I have seen — ever. — and it does not disguise the message in the slightest. The director and scriptwriter is Spanish and Chilean, namely Alejandro Amenábar. It offers a Voltairean portrait of Judaism, as an oppressed rabble, most of all responsible for the crime of having birthed Christianity. There are some not-so-subtle parallels shown between the early Christians and current Muslim terrorists.
The visual rendering of antiquity is nicely done and without an excess of CGI.
Here is a positive New York Times review. Here is a positive Guardian review. Not everyone will like this movie.
Thwarted auction markets in everything
Vienna's archdiocese has ruled that the box-like structure where believers confess their sins cannot be turned into a sauna.
Bidding on a confessional described on eBay as ideal for conversion into a one-person sauna, a small bar or a children's playhouse was ended when the archdiocese stepped in.
Archdiocese spokesman Erich Leitenberger told the daily Salzburger Nachrichten that auctioning "objects that were used for dispensing the sacraments is not acceptable."
Confessionals "should not be converted into saunas or bars," he was quoted Tuesday as saying.
At the time the leading bid was 666.66 euros. There is more here and I thank John Chilton for the pointer.
Preachers who are not believers
In Preachers who are not believers, a provocative new paper in Evolutionary Psychology, Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola interview five preachers who no longer believe in God. Here's one bit:
A gulf opened up between what one says from the pulpit and what one has been taught in seminary. This gulf is well-known in religious circles. The eminent biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman’s widely read book, Misquoting Jesus (2005), recounts his own odyssey from the seminary into secular scholarship, beginning in the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, a famously conservative seminary which required its professors to sign a statement declaring the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, a declaration that was increasingly hard for Ehrman to underwrite by his own research. The Dishonest Church (2003), by retired United Church of Christ minister, Jack Good, explores this “tragic divide” that poisons the relationship between the laity and the clergy. Every Christian minister, not just those in our little study, has to confront this awkwardness, and no doubt there are many more ways of responding to it than our small sample illustrates. How widespread is this phenomenon? When we asked one of the other pastors we talked with initially if he thought clergy with his views were rare in the church, he responded, “Oh, you can’t go through seminary and come out believing in God!” Surely an overstatement, but a telling one. As Wes put it:
…there are a lot of clergy out there who — if you were to ask them — if you were to list the five things that you think may be the most central beliefs of Christianity, they would reject every one of them.
One can be initiated into a conspiracy without a single word exchanged or secret handshake; all it takes is the dawning realization, beginning in seminary, that you and the others are privy to a secret, and that they know that you know, and you know that they know that you know. This is what is known to philosophers and linguists as mutual knowledge, and it plays a potent role in many social circumstances. Without any explicit agreement, mutual knowledge seals the deal: you then have no right to betray this bond by unilaterally divulging it, or even discussing it.
It was interesting to me that this account is related to the ideas of preference falsification developed by Timur Kuran, sacrifice and stigma developed by Larry Iannaccone and common knowledge by Robert Aumann.
The best sentence I read today
The deities of the Sangli-based trust "Ganpati Panchayatam Sansthan" are Lord Ganesh, Chintamaneshwardev, Chintamaneshwaridevi, Suryanarayandev and Laxminarayandev.
For the pointer I thank Karthik S. The context is this:
Can Hindu deities have demat accounts to enable them transact in shares and debentures on the stock market?
The Bombay High Court will decide the issue after a religious trust filed a petition challenging the decision of National Securities Depository Ltd (NSDL) to refuse it permission for opening demat accounts in the names of five Hindu deities.
Why pick on cryonics?
A few of my lunch compadres have asked why I compare cryonics (unfavorably) to acts of charity, rather than comparing other acts of personal consumption (I enjoy the gelato here in Berlin) to charity. My view is this: the decision to have one's head frozen is not primarily instrumental but rather expressive. Look at the skewed demographics of the people who do it, namely highly intelligent male readers of science fiction, often with tech jobs. Is it that they love their lives especially much? Unlikely. Instead it's a chance to stand for something and in a way which sets them apart from many others. It's a chance to stand for instrumental rationality, for Science, for attitudes which go beyond traditional religion, for the conquering of limits, for probabilistic reasoning, and for the notion that the subject sees hidden possibilities and resources which more traditional observers do not.
It's like voting for a very unusual political candidate.
In my view the people interested in cryonics are often highly meritorious, as is Robin. So I'm very sympathetic with a) letting them do what they want, and b) praising them and their affiliations, simply because they are productive and smart and also not harming others. Those factors militate in favor of cryonics and indeed I am happy to endorse laissez-faire for the practice but still I don't find myself settling into really liking the idea.
Let's say I use another Hansonian construct and put everyone behind a contractarian veil of ignorance. I then ask: given that we don't know who will be born into which position, which expressive symbols do we want these highly intelligent individuals to send, and also to identify with, given that reputation is limited and publicity is scarce? Keep also in mind that society is insufficiently appreciative of intelligence and we would prefer that more people had greater respect for analytic thinking. There are also many worthy causes out there.
I don't see the positive deal here. I believe the world would be better off, and the relative status of the virtuous nerds higher, if instead the cryonics customers sent more signals which were perceived as running contrary to type. Ignoring cryonics, and promoting charity, would do more to raise the status of intelligence and analytical thinking than does cryonics.
On the practical side, while I am a non-believer, I also think that charity has a greater chance of bringing a longer life to one's self – or immortality — than does signing a cryonics contract. That's an even stronger triumph for probabilistic thinking than what the cryonics customers have on tap.
Addendum: If you haven't already, do go back and read both Quentin and #44 on these issues. Bracing stuff.