‘Religious Economics’

Whatever anyone says, the course of history is shaped by religion, economics, or both. Those who view history through the lens of class struggle and those who see religious conflicts as the main factor guiding history both have valid points. Those who say “Karl Marx was right,” and those who find numerous pieces of evidence for the significance of faith in the flow of history in Max Weber’s idea that capitalism began with Protestant ethics are both right… Considering that religion generally evokes spirituality and economics materiality, and that humanity cannot be thought of separately from either spirituality or materiality, Nasreddin Hodja, who says, “You are right too,” is the most right of all…

What doesn’t come to mind when we talk about religion and economics? From how an economic life in accordance with the commands and prohibitions of religion is possible, to products manufactured with the claim of meeting religious needs (which, in recent times, have come to include many luxury hotels and even islands). From debates over whether capitalism or socialism is more compatible with Islam, to critiques of consumer society and defenses such as “If it’s halal, I’ll consume as much as I want” — everything…

For some time now, in our writings, we have been focusing on how we should approach all these topics — emphasizing the spirit of the times, what we need to do today, the importance of criticism and self-criticism, and our responsibilities to the world, to life, to others, and to ourselves. Naturally, academia and modern economics are striving to understand, in a scientific manner, the very subjects we’ve been endlessly debating, leaving no stone unturned and often getting into heated disputes. In this article, I would like to offer an assessment based on the book Religious Economics: Faith, Wealth, Happiness by our esteemed thinker Professor Ömer Demir.

Professor Ömer Demir believes that the old scientific approach to religion was not particularly appropriate. Until the mid-20th century, religion was regarded in academia as a sort of temporal anomaly in the flow of history—something that had gotten stuck in our throats and could be expelled after a few gag reflexes. The figures we consider the pioneers of the social sciences viewed religion in this way and based their perspectives on the following assumptions:

“1. Religion is wrong because it hinders rational thought and is harmful to society because it sanctifies tyrants.
2. Religion is doomed to end and fail, in the sense of being erased from human life.
3. Religion is a shadow reality with no true substance…
4. Religion is more a characteristic of an individual’s spiritual state than a social phenomenon as a feature of a group or community. It should be studied as a dimension of individual consciousness, not as a dimension of the social system.”

These theses remained valid until the 1950s. For this reason, the lowest rate of religiosity among scientists was always found among social scientists. But first, a handful of courageous academics began to step out from behind the shields of these assumptions, and then hundreds began to argue that the opposite views were more accurate. And how could they not defend such views? Even though modernity arrived with its cannons, rifles, science, and technology, it had no real effect on people’s religious beliefs. Global studies showed that nearly 80% of people still believed in a Creator. Results like the one in Ukraine—where the percentage of those identifying as Orthodox Christians was 15% in 1990 when the country was part of the Soviet Bloc, yet rose above 70% after the fall of militant materialism—were nothing short of scandalous. As a result of all this, “In recent years, religion has become a subject of science as part of the reality studied by almost all social science disciplines, from political science to international relations, from economics to social psychology.” (I completely agree with Professor Ömer Demir’s observation. Despite having passed through several generations of militant materialist oppression, it is a plain fact that the practices referred to as “socialism” have only strengthened people’s religious beliefs around the world. However, especially in recent years, developments in Evangelism, Christianity, and Judaism; the phenomena and justifications presented under the label of Islamophobia; Israel’s genocidal policies; and developments in the technomedia world centered on smart devices have significantly damaged and undermined traditional religious understandings — this too is a reality that requires deep reflection.)

In this process, the science of economics also came to understand that religion is one of the indispensable aspects of human existence and recognized its significant influence on shaping economic attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Investigating this influence opened the door to new scientific fields. Just as areas such as family, sexuality, crime, terrorism, education, health, and the environment can be explained through economic analysis, it was now considered that religious orientations could likewise be analyzed economically. Thus, a new field of research emerged under the name “economics of religion.” In direct contrast to “economics of religion,” studies in “religious economics” also began to appear—these aimed to examine the foundations of human economic behavior within a moral-religious framework. Views were presented under titles such as “Christian Economics” and “Islamic Economics.”

I learned all of this from Professor Dr. Ömer Demir’s book Religious Economics: Faith, Wealth, Happiness, published by Sentez Publishing. I strongly recommend this book, where you can also find scientific answers to questions such as how economic development and wealth affect religion, and what the relationships are between human happiness and religion.

“Does religion lead to wealth?”

This is one of the questions posed in Ömer Demir’s book; he has devoted a section to answering it, attempting to understand the relationship between religion, economics, and wealth.

Such vast differences in prosperity levels among societies have been evident over the past two hundred years. For centuries prior, humanity had achieved roughly similar levels of per capita production. The West, which lagged slightly behind other civilizations a thousand years ago, experienced a major economic surge—particularly after 1820. For the first time in history, countries were forced to be divided into two categories: “developed” and “underdeveloped.” The West’s economic dominance was followed by political and cultural dominance. We know all of this, yet science still cannot fully explain why some countries have remained rich while others have stayed poor throughout history. Don’t start listing “capital accumulation, skilled labor, productivity, geography, climate, culture, openness to innovation, technological capacity, work and savings habits, legal systems, preferred development policies, and political structures of countries”—each of these has been studied individually, but it remains undetermined whether they are causes or consequences of economic development. The only point of consensus in the scientific community is that the inclusive institutions developed by a society play a key role in economic success, and that economic development inevitably contributes to democracy.

There are various opinions on whether religion contributes to a country’s wealth. The scientific community is divided into three camps regarding the connection between religion and economics. Some argue that there is a negative or positive relationship between the two, while others claim there is no clear correlation at all.

Professor Ömer Demir divides capital into two categories: “human” capital, which arises from the interaction of knowledge, skills, and experience with physical and mental health; and “social” capital, which emerges from the mutual interaction of trust, solidarity, the desire to work together, and the relationship networks that make this possible. He seeks to understand the impact of religion on the economy through human and social capital, reasoning that these provide the motivation to work. Based on research, he believes that religiosity positively affects human capital through physical health, mental well-being, and education. This idea will certainly make the secular circles—those who cling to the absurd thesis that there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and educational level or mental health—jump in protest, but we suggest they stop jumping and follow the path of science. They would do well to calmly reconsider their strange thesis that wealthier societies are less religious because they are better educated. In fact, we should all reflect a little more on the now scientifically proven link between participation in religious activities and longer life expectancy…

Professor Ömer Demir states that there is no solution other than two paths: developing transparency to increase social capital in society, and spreading the beliefs that nourish social capital. He argues that religiosity enhances social capital by enabling individuals to exercise self-control, trust one another, feel a sense of responsibility toward others, work harder, be content with what they have rather than being driven by ambition or envy, cleanse their consumption patterns of waste and ostentation, and maintain honest, trusting, and cooperative relationships — all of which contribute to reducing crime rates. He notes: “As the need for formal institutional procedures to ensure compliance with common rules decreases, transaction costs will fall, and the resulting savings will be redirected to the production of goods and services.” However, he does not fail to add: “Religious social capital may not automatically transform into direct social capital. This is because the qualities a person acquires through religious affiliation can make them inward-looking, resentful or withdrawn from their surroundings, and while they may be highly active and self-sacrificing in religious matters, they can become reluctant to participate in work and activities that do not have a direct religious outcome. In fact, such consequences may even be considered indicators of religious capital negatively impacting social capital…”

There is no doubt that Professor Ömer Demir’s observations have also prompted you to reflect on the realities of our own country. Nevertheless, research on these matters must never be abandoned. Comparative studies of interfaith consumption behaviors, clarification of what is meant by religiosity, and investigations into the differences between fanatic and moderate perspectives on religion are all essential. Academia must move beyond superficial, trivial subjects and undertake bold research that can offer genuine insight and guidance for politics and public administration. Studies in the economics of religion must definitely be integrated with those in the field of religious psychology. For my part, I can already say that the concept of “religiosity” is quite inadequate for meaningful discourse in the social and psychological spheres; I firmly believe that perspectives on religion must be conceptually diversified and addressed in conjunction with personality development and the refinement of the self.