« Markets in Everything: Dead and Live Souls | Main | Understanding politics »
John Calvin as behavioral economist
Tomorrow marks the 500th birthday of John Calvin. If you read John Calvin you will find a great deal of what we now call behavioral economics.
For there is no medium between the two things: the earth must either be worthless in our estimation, or keep us enslaved by an intemperate love of it.
Here is one reason why there is "evil" in the world:
Whatever be the kind of tribulation with which we are afflicted, we should always consider the end of it to be, that we may be trained to despise the present, and thereby stimulated to aspire to the future life. For since God well knows how strongly we are inclined by nature to a slavish love of this world, in order to prevent us from clinging too strongly to it, he employs the fittest reason for calling us back, and shaking off our lethargy.
Adam Smith and David Hume were influenced by Calvin:
If we see a funeral, or walk among graves, as the image of death is then present to the eye, I admit we philosophise admirably on the vanity of life. We do not indeed always do so, for those things often have no effect upon us at all. But, at the best, our philosophy is momentary. It vanishes as soon as we turn our back, and leaves not the vestige of remembrance behind; in short, it passes away, just like the applause of a theatre at some pleasant spectacle. Forgetful not only of death, but also of mortality itself, as if no rumour of it had ever reached us, we indulge in supine security as expecting a terrestrial immortality.
It is odd to call someone so famous an "underrated thinker" but indeed Calvin is. You'll find the whole text of the Institutes of Christian Religion here; it makes for good browsing.
This chapter is John Calvin imitating Robin Hanson.
Buy the book here on Kindle for 99 cents.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 9, 2009 at 07:23 AM in History, Religion | Permalink
Comments
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.
Ecc 1:9-11. :)
Posted by: nelsonal at Jul 9, 2009 7:58:31 AM
"Because the Papists persecute the truth should we, on that account, refrain from repressing error?" John Calvin. His answer was no: let's persecute those who dissent from us too.
Furthermore, Calvin doesn't hold a candle, intellectually speaking, to Thomas Aquinas (who also had his persecution faults, however).
Posted by: Mario Rizzo at Jul 9, 2009 9:34:12 AM
When one is absolutely certain that one's views are correct, persecution of the 'other' becomes acceptable and, indeed, necessary.
Posted by: songar at Jul 9, 2009 10:27:41 AM
In the matter of persecution, couldn't one interpret both the actions of bin Laden and our various responses to them as fundamentally the same thing? Because we know we are right and you are wrong, we will stop you from doing what you are doing by whatever means necessary. It seems to me that logic is utilized by followers of every creed, including "no creed."
Posted by: Norman at Jul 9, 2009 10:46:40 AM
I have heard that Calvin's theology has indirect
consequences for economic behavior, where one
postpones gratification not just from earth to
the heaven that is to come but from the instant
gratification of desire (immediate spending)
to savings and capital formation. And worldly
prosperity came to be taken as a token of divine
Grace: one may not have conquered sin but one
has kept it a tolerable distance. I believe his
ideas played a part in what was called "the
Protestant ethic". Both Adam Smith and David
Hume were fromScotland, where Calvinism hs been
a powerful influence. New England Puritans and
later the Scotch-Irish brought it to America.
Posted by: Candadai Tirumalai at Jul 9, 2009 11:06:55 AM
How could someone who said such things be underrated? Which of these quotes is non-horrifying?
Posted by: David J. Balan at Jul 9, 2009 11:10:33 AM
So is it the idea that if we did not have to die, then due to our "slavish love of this world" we would cling on to material things harder.
I somehow always thought this would be opposite. If we did not have to die, then we have all the time in the world and may actually spend more time in present than keep looking into future to gain more and more before time runs out. Is there any reserch on this?
Posted by: JAK at Jul 9, 2009 11:14:37 AM
Is modern progressivism a non-theistic descendant of (somewhat quakerized) Calvinism?
Posted by: josh at Jul 9, 2009 11:42:36 AM
Calvin influenced Hume? That is an interesting claim. It does not show up in the Hume bios I've read, nor the philosophical analyses. Given Hume's theories, it would be a surprising connection. I am curious, what leads you to the suggestion?
Posted by: J. Bogart at Jul 9, 2009 12:07:39 PM
How many heretics and witches did he burn at the stake? Hundreds surely!
Posted by: athEIst at Jul 9, 2009 12:46:22 PM
"In the matter of persecution, couldn't one interpret both the actions of bin Laden and our various responses to them as fundamentally the same thing?"
Well, let's consider 9/11. That was an attack, ostensibly based on the fervent, fundamental belief that the US is evil. The response (had it been appropriately and effectively focused) would have been a defensive response. . .aimed at protecting what we fervently believe.
It would seem that "stop[ping] you from doing what you are doing by whatever means necessary" is not "fundamentally the same" if the act of "stopp[ing] you" is defensively rather than offensively motivated.
Posted by: songar at Jul 9, 2009 1:11:33 PM
I don't know about his views on economics, but in political philosophy John Calvin was a formative background and often direct influence on Republican Radicalism, British Trade Unionism, civic humanism and, thereby, Social Democracy, Fascism, National Socialism and Communism. Now I don't want to imply that John Calvin was himself a communist, just that his intellectual legacy is quite a twisting road.
Posted by: Vichy at Jul 9, 2009 3:31:03 PM
Whoa!!! Tyler! Calvin as a behavioral economist?! This may explain why I find behavioral economists so unhelpful. Calvin's attitude is expressed by him as the "disadvantages of prosperity" blind us to accepting death when "He" calls.
If economics is anything it is about living, striving, acting to meet our needs. Calvin is all about the "here after." Surely he is an intellectual dead-end as regards economics.
But to the extent he did influence Hume (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) and Smith (the labor theory of value), that may explain why these men led us down the wrong path regarding value. A path that led to Marx and communism and the deaths of millions of people in the 20th century. A result that certainly accelerated the populating of Calvin's "here after."
Perhaps this is why economics is sometimes called the dismal science. Tyler, its time to leave this and classical economics behind and embrace the life affirming Austrian economics.
Posted by: Brian at Jul 9, 2009 3:47:46 PM
@athEIst, there is one known death attributed to John Calvin: Servitus. He was neither a witch or an atheist, but a Christian Heretic.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi689.htm
Who would have been killed by the Catholics, or several other groups, if they had gotten to him first.
Also, during this time period, towns would regularly go to battle over differing opinions. Calvin's predecessor, Zwingly was killed in one of those battles.
Posted by: C. Brandsma at Jul 9, 2009 4:34:29 PM
I find Paul and Calvin a mite confusing with respect to justification. If justification comes by faith, and faith is a work of the believer, then we are justified by what we do. But grace is a gift of God and that grace is ours (or not) without regard to our works. So why doesn't grace work without faith? Surely, faith works without resulting in the gift of grace, doesn't it? If that is so, why bother to do anything but seek your own good?
Posted by: Dennis Tuchler at Jul 9, 2009 5:28:30 PM
If economics is anything it is about living, striving, acting to meet our needs. Calvin is all about the "here after." Surely he is an intellectual dead-end as regards economics.That isn't true. Read his commentary on 2 Thess. 3:
He now proceeds to the correcting of a particular fault. As there were some indolent, and at the same time curious and prattling persons, who, in order that they might scrape together a living at the expense of others, wandered about from house to house, he forbids that their indolence should be encouraged by indulgence, and teaches that those live holily who procure for themselves the necessaries of life by honorable and useful labor. And in the first place, he applies the appellation of disorderly persons, not to those that are of a dissolute life, or to those whose characters are stained by flagrant crimes, but to indolent and worthless persons, who employ themselves in no honorable and useful occupation.
As for the biblical doctrine of justification:
I find Paul and Calvin a mite confusing with respect to justification. If justification comes by faith, and faith is a work of the believer, then we are justified by what we do. But grace is a gift of God and that grace is ours (or not) without regard to our works. So why doesn't grace work without faith?
Your terminology is a bit confused.
Justification comes by faith, and faith is a work, surely - but faith is a gift of God. And God grants that gift without regard to merit. Why does justification come by faith? Because God is pleased to use means to accomplish his ends.
I don't really understand the rest of your comment...what do you mean by "faith works without resulting in the gift of grace?"
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Jul 9, 2009 6:05:47 PM
Servetus is claimed by modern Unitarians as their founding martyr.
He was accused of being a Jewish and Muslim agent, among other
supposed heresies. The Socinian and Unitarian churches of central
and eastern Europe are his immediate followers, not so much the
Unitarians of Britain or the US, who came on the scene much later.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jul 9, 2009 6:25:20 PM
"Your terminology is a bit confused.
Justification comes by faith, and faith is a work, surely - but faith is a gift of God."
Perhaps you could explain that a bit more for those of us who are not theologically disposed.
There's an almost palpable tension between the words "work" and "gift". If in His infinite impartiality God bestows on all His creatures the gift of faith, why does He not bestow on those same creatures an equal desire, inclination, and ability to subjugate reason to faith?
As for "means" and "ends". . . . Many of His "ends" seem to center around the worship of His blessed Self (see the first four of the Ten Commandments). And the "means" He employs? Wondrous carrot (Heaven) and horrendous stick (Hell).
Opinion: A faith worth living and dying for should be cause enough, in itself (sans the aforementioned "means") , for belief.
Posted by: songar at Jul 9, 2009 8:45:32 PM
If faith is a gift, and not a product of a person's own will, why did Paul exhort the members of his communities to have and cultivate faith in Jesus? If it's a gift of god, should it not be automatic? On the other hand, Paul sometimes talks of faith, sometimes of grace.
Calvin and his followers had another point that confuses me, one taken from occasional statements in II Kings and in the various prophets of the Hebrew bible -- that god controls what we do and has a plan for all things. What happens to free will and the ability to sin?
Think about this enough and you are encouraged to think of other things -- hence, good business and many children.
Posted by: Dennis Tuchler at Jul 11, 2009 3:38:30 PM
". . .god controls what we do and has a plan for all things. What happens to free will and the ability to sin?"
Why would that confuse you? Believe unquestioningly and no answers are needed.
Of course, it's the rare human being, indeed, who can retain free will while simultaneously accepting claims of the church that conflict with real world observations.
Posted by: songar at Jul 11, 2009 7:08:27 PM
