Have we "brought into a Darwinism system of economics that
appears to be disconnected the with faith system of most in America." [sic]
Sage e-mailed me about his review of The Death of Adam
... In an essay on the family, which is really about economics, she complains of having heard people say they “can’t live by Jesus’ teachings in this complex modern world,” yet still maintain that they’re Christian. “They might as well call themselves the Manichaean Right or the Zoroastrian Right and not live by those teachings,” she suggests. She makes the case that we’re to take care of one another and the poor and that the Sabbath wasn’t a bad idea.
At the risk of sounding more pompous than I usually am, let me offer up two additions (without having read this book).
1) I actually have thought before that a lot of what passes for Christianity in the U.S. is just dressed up Zorastrianism. As near as I can figure, the point of religion for many people is to divide the world into us and them, and really, isn't that Manichaean enough to be unchristian? I guess I'll have to put this book on my to-read list.
2) Yet, I'm deeply suspicious of any religious advice on economics; and the problem here is what is regarded as scripture or the canon by whatever group is making the pronouncements. The problem is the zero-sum view of the world. Most of human history has been a zero-sum game: you get rich by making others poor. Most, but not all. We're in the midst of a 3 century period - with no end in sight - where life has been a positive sum game for just about everyone that each of us has ever known. Robinson criticizes the Christian right for being Darwinian. I think that this is a problem if the world is zero-sum: survival of the fittest means destruction of the weakest, and that certainly doesn't line up with what Christ said. If scripture - written when the world was zero-sum - is your guide, then there is clearly a problem here. But, what if scripture isn't comprehensive? What if it offers no guidance about how to act in a world that is positive-sum? I think there is a case in such a world for being Darwinian: do we really think society would be better off if Norman Borlaug or Al Gore (take your pick) spent more time working in a soup kitchen? They might be better as individuals, but it is a fantasy to think that you can always make society off by making individuals better off. Unfortunately, the typical response of the faithful is to claim that perhaps life is a positive-sum game right now, but that this can't possibly last - ultimately those zero-sum religious teachings will be more widely relevant. I'm not even sure how to address this with a straight face: I guess I would say there is probably less evidence to support this assertion than there is for the faith that God exists at all. It is an astonishingly hopeful Hail Mary to end the argument with (and a particularly nasty one, since it obviates any hope for the betterment of us all). It also gets to the crux of the problem with Christian objections to the Darwinian view: I simply don't think this is an assertion about which reasonable people can have different opinions. There are enough things that are important to society that are unbounded - like new ideas - that a return to a zero-sum society simply isn't possible or worthwhile envisioning for any purpose other than navel gazing. For better or worse - and whether or not God had a hand in it or not - the world of humans is positive-sum now and forever. I don't think this interferes in any way with those who want to view scripture as authoritative; I merely suggest that it isn't comprehensive and that assuming that it is would be a mistake. So, by all means, "take care of one another and the poor" as the Christian thing to do, but don't assume that this makes the logical inverse false. I get the strong impression that Ms. Robinson may have done just that.
