or Gary North.
It’s funny… I’ve heard the complaint that there are too many Christians associated with the Mises Institute.
My logic? Look you just quoted me saying its NOT that I will not read it but its about taking it seriously.
And then you repeat the argument that that quote refuted.
Once again… My logic?
Seriously?
Religion is entirely insignificant when it comes to economic theory. An economist’s religious positions say absolutely nothing about the tenability of his/her theories. Religion is useful only when it comes to epistemological problems, namely as a remedy for global skepticism, the problem of induction, and establishes the necessary first cause. So again, whether an economist is Christian, Satanic, Islamic, Hindu, or whatever is entirely immaterial. The proof of a theory is in its reasoning.
Wut? Who brought up logic? Anyway, I was surprised that no one else had mentioned Tom Woods as a Christian author.
I wouldn’t say so. Economic propositions are propositions like any other, and they can come into conflict with (or be supported by) religious dogma.
I’m almost afraid to ask this, but why don’t you take non-Christian authors seriously? Is everything they say false?
I was defining religion in a very general way, namely as the belief in a God (where God would be defined as the creator of the universe). Deists would fit into this very broad definition. I don’t see how Deism could come into conflict with economic theory.
Your question has already been answered. I’m merely pointing out a simple fact. 1+1=2 no matter who says it, Satanist’s included.
feel free to talk with me about anything off topic in mises the chat
I have to keep myself very organized or else people will pull me way off topic
Deism may not come into conflict with economics; but deism is not the only religion. “Religion” may, depending on its propositional content, come into conflict with economics.
Even then, I don’t see how it can come into conflict with economic theory. Saying that usury is immoral, no matter how misguided that statement may be, does not contradict economic theory.
Haven’t we answered your question sufficiently? Why can’t we talk about other, related things?
Some religions deny scarcity, for instance. I believe that Islam is one such religion (at least according to certain interpretations). Moreover, some religions teach economic propositions; things like choice, cost, preferences, etc. Either way, you shouldn’t say the religion is “entirely insignificant” in economic matters.
Sources please.
What kind of sources are you looking for? Something about Islam, specifically? Or do you not agree that religious dogma can contradict/support economic propositions?
[DELETED -WILLIAM]
sure mesasage me or meet me in mises
This sentence makes no sense at all.
Explicit passages from scripture (the only authority on the matter). Where in Islamic scripture do you find the denial of scarcity? Which religions teach economic propositions, and where? I mean, my request couldn’t have been clearer. Economics and religion deal with two very different things; they ask and answer very different questions.
According to certain interpretations of parts of the Qu’ran, scarcity is a man-made phenomenon which arises from his failure to adequately organize his god-given resources. I’m not going to look up specific passages from the Qu’ra to support this assertion; my guess is that these passages are controversial and ambiguous. (By the way, if it means anything to you, I was told this by one of my professors who is a scholar of Islam). This is beside the point — what matters is that some people believe certain things about economics because of their religious dogma. It’s weird to me that you find this controversial.
I’m sure that you’re familiar with Gary North. He has written an economic commentary on the entire Bible, and I believe it numbers in the thousands of pages. Maybe you should ask him if religion has anything to say about economics.
But, here’s an example, since you asked for one. The idea of subjective value permeates Christian scripture. From the lecture I linked to earlier: