« The Stern report on global warming | Main | Profile of Kevin Murphy »
Why doesn't God save everyone?
Even an agnotheist can care about this question. It is simple:
The first prediction of the model is that God will not offer a salvation contract where everyone is saved. If God sets θ=0 then all individuals receive s, but there would be no rearrangement of bundles and hence no utility benefits for God to balance the lump sum cost C. This cannot be an equilibrium. On the other hand setting θ=infinity would mean no individuals choose s, and no rearrangements, and this cannot be an equilibrium. Thus θ will be set between these extremes, with the value depending on the forms of the divine and human utility functions and endowments. Some, but not all individuals are predicted to choose salvation, and this is consistent with both the scriptures and observation.
Doesn't this result fall apart if God can...um...perfectly "price discriminate" in his commands? From Paul Oslington, here is more, namely a rational choice theory of God. How about this bit:
Paradoxically, the more effective is the salvation mechanism the more it will turn the unsaved away from what God prefers. Individuals choosing salvation will force up the prices of inputs into commodities God prefers be consumed, so that unsaved individuals will substitute away from commodities God values to those God frowns upon.
Who said pecuniary externalities do not matter?
And here is John Derbyshire on God and religion, he is no longer a Christian.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 4, 2006 at 01:29 PM in Religion | Permalink
Comments
And here is John Derbyshire on God and religion, he is no longer a Christian.
It doesn't appear he ever really was, truth be told. His religion was almost all habit and social norm, little commitment to the tenets of his faith.
- Josh
Posted by: Wild Pegasus at Nov 4, 2006 2:56:07 PM
Ugh! Next economists will be developing a rational choice theory of Big Bang, I suppose. Good luck to them.
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Nov 4, 2006 3:46:30 PM
Tyler,
This view misrepresents the Christian view. On the standard Christian view (barring hyperCalvinists) God offers salvation to all persons. But traditions diverge as soon as we try to understand the causal structure of the salvation event. The traditional Reformed view lines up here and breaks the model above because salvation can't be construed as an agreement.
But what about once persons are saved? Can't they lose their faith? Well, some believe that that's impossible [mostly just the Reformed and some Evangelicals - 'eternal security' is what it's called]. But if it's possible [on the Lutheran view, for instance], there's a further twist.
On the Augustinian/Reformed view *Christians actually have two wills* [the degree of reification varies]: a carnal and spiritual one. The Christian both prefers to submit to God by means of her spiritual will and wills her own end as primary by means of her carnal will. Life becomes a struggle to have faith and to rely on God's grace. So salvation on this model has to be understood in terms of persons under certain conditions as having an exceedingly high preference for to place themselves above God. Some Christians think that unregenerate persons place infinite value on this; in other words, although they are free, there are simply no conditions under which they would choose God if left to themselves.
Some believe that we all will against God and that God chooses some [seemingly arbitrarily] to elect and that His reasons are inscrutable. Others argue that God makes a choice available to everyone in one way or another - at some point [perhaps even after death] and they choose to accept or reject him on their own. On this view, you have to answer the following question: Why does a person reject God? The standard answer is that we have an innate metaphysical disposition to prefer our own ends to those of God's.
You could construe this view as a contract view, yet no Christian thinks of the decision as being made of in terms of rewards and punishment. It is about entering into a relationship with God *for its own sake*.
Enter, finally, the Catholic view of quiescence. On Aquinas' view, God will not change the will of a person against her own will. However, if she has no will about her will (no second order will, in other words), then she is said to be in a quiescent state. In this case, God acts to change the will without violating free will. So he actually acts to change people's valuations. On this view, you also can't quite construe savlation as a contract in the same way either.
Anyway, economists need to know more theology if they're going to model this stuff, at least for Christians [which is all I know about theologically].
Posted by: Rhadamanthus at Nov 4, 2006 4:03:15 PM
Look, I don't believe in god or the supernatural, but this is flat out stupid.
I think someone using logic and math to argue anything about god is dumber than someone carrying out war in the name of god.
Posted by: BillWallace at Nov 4, 2006 5:03:58 PM
P(God) = 1/20 small enough to be agnotheist? (Wasn't that your figure?) Sounds like weak agnotheism to me.
And,
As much as Brad Delong bad mouthes him, I think Derbyshire is a good read. Yes, he says nasty things sometimes, but all old men do that. Pieces like this one about his religion show that he's at least honest.
Posted by: Lee Beck at Nov 4, 2006 5:33:29 PM
why is money being wasted on this guy's salary? i often wonder if economic research production is efficient...
Posted by: The Tsunami at Nov 5, 2006 12:25:30 AM
"God gives His gifts where He finds the vessel empty enough to receive them." -- Lewis
I don't know how to economically model humility, though.
Posted by: Eli at Nov 5, 2006 12:47:45 AM
TheTsunami -- +1
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Nov 5, 2006 3:42:07 AM
Superb post, Rhadamanthus!
God's economy has no waste and no scarcity. It operates differently from our material world. Economic principles may apply but they must be principles appropriate to the system they analyze.
A saved individual is motivated by his love of God. Life on this earth is a mere sliver of an eternal existence that has already commenced. Choices made by these rational saved individuals likely appear irrational from the temporal perspective of those not yet saved.
In my opinion this is a large part of the disconnect between the somewhat less theistic left and the somewhat more theistic right. Each cannot even comprehend the other's "irrational" choices because, while most of each are people of good will, they simply live within two vastly different realities.
It is like the difference between purchasing a house and getting your dry cleaning done. When you purchase the house you likely will maximize your utilty by carefully negotiating the price and features, using an especially "sharp pencil" because it is unlikely you will ever purchase a house from that seller again.
When you get your dry cleaning done, both the dry cleaner and you have good reason to not be fiercely maximizing your utilities. Relationship is important, you're going to need dry cleaning for a very long time and there are probably limited options of truly dependable convenient dry cleaners for you. For the dry cleaner a long term customer is worth thousands of dollars, so she will even pay questionable claims of loss or damage in order to retain you.
So it is for the committed Christian. Every one we interact with must be regarded as one of God's chosen- someone who is also in the first stage of an eternal life and someone we will be interacting with again and again over eternity. In God's economy it benefits us to treat all people as we would like to be treated, He even made up a rule about this.
God's ways are not our ways, they are better ways. And they are available to each and everyone of us, including you, starting right now.
Posted by: Trey Tomeny at Nov 5, 2006 6:15:11 AM
"salvation can't be construed as an agreement".
Well lots of Protestants and others put it in exactly those terms. Salvation is precisely defined as accepting Jesus as your personal savior. Sounds like a bargain and sale agreement to me, and depending on your denomination with some very specific conditions attached.
No dancing for you Mr. Southern Baptist. No cheeseburger or lobster for you Mr. Orthodox Jew. No coffee for you Mr. Strict Mormon. Wear that yamulke, hat, veil. Don't have pictures in your house. Don't shave that beard. Do carry that knife at all times. And in an astonishing range don't have that Rum and Coke (excuse me while I mix another).
You would have a hard time identifying a major world religion that could not be expressly described in contractual terms. Do "THIS" regularly, don't do "THAT" and you go to heaven. Otherwise not.
Posted by: Bruce Webb at Nov 5, 2006 11:30:28 AM
Jesus Christ Superstar
Hosanna by
Weber
Posted by: S at Nov 5, 2006 4:06:19 PM
Isn't God practicing price discrimination just the idea of Purgatory, which enables potential sinners to make choices on the margin rather than having to choose corner solutions? I think the Catholic Church did get this one right way back in the day. Definetly more incentive to act right if you think you can cut your years in Purgatory compared to the situation where you figure you're alrady damned no matter what (and becoming undammned would require to much worldly effort).
Heaven/Hell/No Purgatory is like instituting the Death Penalty for stealing candy bars. Once you steal that candy bar, might as well kill all witnesses since it doesn't increase your expected costs and lowers probability of getting caught. In cases like these death penalty DOES act as an anti-deterrent to crime, just like no-exceptions salvation policy.
Posted by: radek at Nov 5, 2006 8:46:07 PM
This is why I like Hinduism. Everybody gets "saved" - just that it takes some people more reincarnations than others.
Posted by: Like that only at Nov 6, 2006 12:27:40 AM
Individuals choosing salvation will force up the prices of inputs into commodities God prefers be consumed, so that unsaved individuals will substitute away from commodities God values to those God frowns upon.
But this is in the short term. In the longer term, the larger market and profits in the "righteous" sector attract more investment and innovation, making it possible for later generations to consume "righteous" goods and services at lower cost.
This is in fact observed in the history of new religious movements. The early adopters generally adopt at high personal cost, but if the movement is successful, successive generations find it easier to practice.
Posted by: Cyrus at Nov 6, 2006 11:37:09 AM
quote:
["The first prediction of the model is that God will not offer a salvation contract where everyone is saved.."]
________________
Modeling God as an 'economic-actor' is nonsense, of course.
But conceiving God as an 'actor' at all -- is nonsense. Perfect-Beings do not act.
________________
[" Theists and Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being, and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke.
An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty.
If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent.
The paradoxes are insoluble. The very idea of absolute perfection is in every way self-contradictory. "]
{-- Ludwig Von Mises}
Posted by: Atherton at Nov 6, 2006 5:12:09 PM
In all the above comments substitute "Zeus" for the word "God". It helps.
Posted by: Randal Leavitt at Nov 6, 2006 7:37:20 PM
All I can say about this, is that I am a Christian. I have faith and believe in what the bible says. People always ask, "How do you know that the bible is true?", you have to have faith. In John 3:16, the bible says "For God so Love the world, that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him will not perrish but have everlasting life." so, If you believe in Christ and accept him then you will be saved. God is giving everyone the opportunity to be saved...its up to us individuals to accept him.
Posted by: Kendra at Nov 8, 2006 12:01:52 PM
Ahhh the unaswerable question. I think this is harder than most because it boils down to a faith factor. First off a faith in things unseen and faith that if you do have salvation you will have an entrance to God. I find it hard to think about this economically because this is either all or nothing. When thinking about things on a production frontiers possibility its almost as if there is no in between its either all or nothing. You either believe in God or not, and you are either going to except salvation or not. But, if God already knows who will choose his salvation in the end anyway why let so many suffer?
Posted by: Heather at Nov 8, 2006 10:14:49 PM
What a great discussion. First I will confess that I believe in the salvation that I cannot always see. The commodity of salvation is impossible to quantify but I do know that it has changed my life. Yes, I now choose different commodities to consume but not because I made a contract to change. God accepts us right where we are and many people who are saved don't change their consumption. However, just because God accepts us where we are doesn't mean that He wants us to stay there. He very often prompts us in directions that are better for us. We still have that choice. The moral hazard issue comes into play in that, unless you are in a very tight community of believers who watch out for you, you have no living, breathing person with skin on watching you and so you have to decide if the choices you make are economical in the Kingdom of Heaven. God has an infinite supply of grace and we choose how much we use. In our relationship with God we make choices on whether we want to please him or not in a particular situation. Those choices are very individual and the rewards are not always pleasant but they are always good if we choose to follow what God (not man) has indicated as being His choice in the situation. It is a very closed economy but has very far reaching effects.
Posted by: Evelyn at Nov 9, 2006 6:18:56 AM
Posted by: at Oct 14, 2008 2:28:18 AM
tiffany rings
tiffany earrings
tiffany necklaces
tiffany pendants
Tiffany Engagement Rings
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 20, 2009 8:58:59 PM
Hello!
very nice post... enjoyed it very much.
Thank you
http://www.best-tutor.com
good site
Posted by: tutor at Jun 3, 2009 10:44:38 AM
