[PEN-L:780] The economics of religion

["William S. Lear" <rael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In the latest *Journal of Economic Literature* (Vol. XXXVI,
Sept. '98), Laurence R. Iannaccone (formerly a Visiting Scholar at the
Hoover Institution) has an "Introduction to the Economics of
Religion".  In it, he makes a few interesting claims:

     It is, in fact, only within the social sciences most committed to
     the secularization  thesis (psychology, anthropology,  and, to  a
     lesser  extent, sociology)   that   one  finds  high   levels  of
     antireligious sentiment.  ... Among leading physicists, chemists,
     and biologists,  belief  in  a god  who    answers prayer  is  as
     widespread today as it was in 1916. [p. 1471]

This is advanced to show that "it is not at all clear that [there is]
a fundamental tension between faith and science" (the "secularization
thesis" is that as science advances, faith declines).

Putting aside 1) that it might very well be true that "leading"
scientists believe this, but that fact says nothing about what the
field of scientists generally thinks, and 2) that finding temporal
continuity of (probably low) religious belief within the field of
science is not supporting evidence for his claim that there is not
"fundamental tension between faith and science" (and is in fact
counter-evidence, given the probable low levels), I thought the
"secularization thesis" was fairly well-established (he attributes it
to "Media hype").

Does anyone know of any surveys that refute his claim?

Next, taking critique of Weber's "Protestant Ethic" as a point of
departure, he steers into a critique of the "Freudian tradition":

     Religion  seems  to  affect  both   mental and  physical  health.
     Despite the nonempirical Freudian  tradition that blames religion
     for neurosis,  prejudice, and authoritarianism, empirical studies
     consistently find  that high  rates  of religious commitment  and
     activity are associated  with mental health, reduced  stress, and
     increased life satisfaction... [p. 1476]

The problems I have with this are that one could find prejudice,
authoritarianism, and even neurosis consistent with all three of the
correlation categories he cites.  That is, reduced stress and
increased life satisfaction are clearly consistent with
authoritarianism, prejudice, and neurosis.  However, the category
"mental health" is clearly consistent with only two of these
(prejudice and authoritarianism), while being only possibly (depending
on what specific complex of measurements is included in the category
"mental health") consistent with neurosis.

The second problem I have with this argument is that the Religious
Right seems to clearly fall into prejudice and authoritarianism.

Are there studies which run counter to this argument?

Also, anyone know of any studies which refute this, or any which
examine any correlation between raising kids in a highly tolerant
atmosphere (perhaps with an emphasis on education) and some of the
indexes Iannaccone uses?

He also claims that polls show "the economic attitudes of
evangelical-fundamentalist Protestants are no more 'conservative'
than those of other Protestants" and that "on several dimensions, most
notably income redistribution and aid to the poor, they are
significantly less conservative than the average American".  He goes
on to say that the Religious Right's "conservatism revolves around"
issues such as "school prayer, abortion, and sexual conduct" which are
"largely independent of their economic attitudes" (1478).


Bill