Religion and the Rise of Capitalism

by Benjamin M. Friedman

From one of the nation's preeminent experts on economic policy, a major reassessment of the foundations of modern economic thinking that explores the profound influence of an until-now unrecognized force—religion.

"Friedman has given us an original and brilliant new perspective on the terrifying divisions of our own times. No book could be more important.” —George A. Akerlof, Nobel Laureate in Economics

Critics of contemporary economics complain that belief in free markets—among economists as well as many ordinary citizens—is a form of religion. And, it turns out, that in a deeper, more historically grounded sense there is something to that idea.

Contrary to the conventional historical view of economics as an entirely secular product of the Enlightenment, Benjamin M. Friedman demonstrates that religion exerted a powerful influence from the outset. Friedman makes clear how the foundational transition in thinking about what we now call economics, beginning in the eighteenth century, was decisively shaped by the hotly contended lines of religious thought within the English-speaking Protestant world. Beliefs about God-given human character, about the after-life, and about the purpose of our existence, were all under scrutiny in the world in which Adam Smith and his contemporaries lived.

Friedman explores how those debates go far in explaining the puzzling behavior of so many of our fellow citizens whose views about economic policies—and whose voting behavior—seems sharply at odds with what would be to their own economic benefit. Illuminating the origins of the relationship between religious thinking and economic thinking, together with its ongoing consequences, Friedman provides invaluable insights into our current economic policy debates and demonstrates ways to shape more functional policies for all citizens.

Genres: Economics, History, Religion, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Christianity

560 pages, Hardcover

Published January 26, 2021

About the author

Benjamin Morton Friedman (born 1944) is a leading American political economist. Friedman is the William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy at Harvard University. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institute's Panel on Economic Activity, and the editorial board of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Friedman received his A.B., A.M., and Ph.D. degrees, all in economics, from Harvard University. He also received an M.Sc. in economics and politics from King's College, Cambridge where he was a Marshall Scholar. He has been on the Harvard faculty since 1972. Currently Friedman is a member of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation.

Reviews

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Christianity doesn’t poison everything, but it does create monsters like Billy Graham, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan and other such ilk who used an exaggerated fear of communism to justify their peculiar brand of hate wrapped in a flag in one hand and The Bible in the other. The author does point out Graham was supportive of blacks but he does neglect to mention that Graham really and truly didn’t like Jews (listen to Nixon tapes). The author points out Buckley wrote a book about Christianity at Yale but doesn’t mention that Buckley was really and truly a white supremacist most of his life and there really is a reason why Trump’s single biggest most reliable voting bloc were white-Evangelicals. Reagan thought Aids stood for God’s reducing plan for gays and purposely looked the other way. Those three creatures figure prominently in the author’s big theme as he got to the 20th century. The 80% of white-Evangelicals who voted for Trump think they are just supporting their bible or aren’t against the others who aren’t in their privilege group, they aren’t racist by their world view they just want what’s best for themselves and besides 'black lives matter' doesn't make sense to them because all lives matter to them, or they don’t think they are homophobes, they in their own mind think they are just defending their own rights and besides to them being gay is a choice and a sin worthy of eternal damnation.

The author steps the reader through the Reformation(s), the Enlightenment up to those three despicable critters mentioned above. Of course, he’ll mention the importance of Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville while trying to defend his thesis of the importance of Christianity with the development of Economics. Always, always, when an author mentions those two my Conservative warning bells go off in my ears since the reader should note that Burke valued ‘reverence, emotion and instinct’ over science, reason, or reflection and Tocqueville believed the enslaved should reimburse their owners for their own freedom and conservatives love to trot him out to show America’s specialness. Both Burke and Tocqueville are the pride and joy for modern day Conservatives because that way they can act like they have real conservative principles wrapped in tradition, culture and community while ignoring they have no positive agenda except a fuzzy mixture of white specialness, America exceptionalism (‘shining city on the hill’), all wrapped with a flag in one hand and the bible in the other.

I always think a writer should assume that their potential reader is interested in their topic and have already read many books on the topic. I would say that there was almost not a single new thing the author told this reader about the Reformations(s), The Enlightenment, The Romantics, or so on until those three vile critters mentioned in the first paragraph. Otherwise, the thing an author needs to do is connect the events and facts for which they are sharing in such a way with a believable and compelling new narrative. This author, at least for me, did not make the case for his big thesis and I would say that religion poisons almost everything and even with its insidious poison society went beyond the Christian worldview religion was superstitiously trapping knowledge in. I grant that the worldview we are thrown into determines how we see the world, but I think that religion lags with the time period while subtlety changing itself in order to try to remain relevant and Economics led the way not religion leading the way, and yes, it is through someone like Thomas Aquinas (who is not mentioned in this book) who allowed reason before faith and led to science happening and so on. (I mean for Gawd’s sake, the Pope won’t let them bless a Gay marriage but we have a patron saint for dogs and we can bless my dog or give a blessing to my house or bless a person after they are dead. Yes, religion poisons almost everything, but it still exists in our background in-spite or because of its superstitions).

There is nothing new in this book regarding the history, the author’s thesis is not strong since Christianity lags progress not leads it and only changes when it is forced to. For example, evolution by natural selection is still not fully accepted by the superstitious but religions are slowly embracing it in order to remain relevant (about 50% of Catholics believe in evolution by natural selection).

[Marks54 · Rating 5 out of 5]

The relationship of religion to economics in the US comes up in lots of ways in a number of different forums. Most obviously to some is the situation where substantial numbers of voters of lower income strata seem to support candidates and policies that do not seem to support their economic interests but instead argue against social programs or increased taxes on the wealthy. More generally, popular debates on economic policies frequently support free market policies as inherently tied with Christian religious orientations and characterize government programs of various sorts as anti-religious. Scholars talk about Weber’s ideas on the Protestant Ethic and Capitalism, although in current debates mainline Protestant denominations are suffering long term declines while membership in more Evangelical groups are increasingly viewed as the major element in communities of faith in the US. These are generalizations, of course, but the link between religious beliefs and economic activities in the American context has been complex and evolving. Listing the areas where these questions arise would itself be a major endeavor, not to mention trying to make sense out of these questions.

Benjamin Friedman’s new book is an attempt to provide such an explanation. Friedman tells a story that begins in colonial times and extends up through the impacts of the Coronavirus pandemic. This is far to complex to even attempt a summary, but this is an outstanding book that goes a long way to making sense out of the relationship of religion and economics. The focus is on the relationship of religion and economics in popular culture and politics. How do the religious beliefs current at some time affect the interactions between the clergy, government, and the public. The economic policies enacted at different times are strongly motivated by the religious beliefs of clergy and politicians, as well as the religious sensitivities of the public that casts votes and benefits or is harmed by policies.

What about professional economists? For much of the period covered in the book, the writings of economists were likewise influenced by the popular culture and political/economic environment. However, with the growth of research universities during the guilded age and through the start of the twentieth century, economics became more of an established field, the agenda of which was determined by its internal structures and governance and less by popular pressures. However, popular pressures on economics, including religious pressures, continued into the twentieth century with the growth of government economic policies during the Great Depression and the dynamics of US political and cultural life after WW2 and into the Cold War with godless Communism. The these dynamics have continued following the fall of the USSR is a testimony to the persistence of public values past the time when global events stimulated such values.

There are lots of stories in the book and Friedman articulates lots of influences in both liberal and conservative strands of Protestantism from the Guilded Age up through the present. One of the interesting punchlines of the book is that religion and economics have in part developed in the US according to distinct trajectories that can be understood on their own terms. For example, conflicts between the “Gospel of Wealth” and the “Social Gospel” are worth learning about. At the same time, the separate trajectories of religion, economics, and politics also interact along the way and influence each other in unpredictable ways. Add to this the role of outsize personalities and it is easy to see how this book become complex.

The book is accessible and worth the effort to work through, although there is a lot going on.

[Rob Barry · Rating 5 out of 5]

I believe the author makes a very strong case to support his theses (his words below):

1. The commonplace assumption that economic ideas stand apart from religious ideas is not true. From its inception as a recognizable intellectual discipline, economics has been influenced by religious ideas.
2. Ordinary citizens bring to public policy debates a worldview that rests on presumptions that originate in religious thinking. Clearly understanding the substandard origins of the worldview that underlies our fellow citizens’ participation in these debates is sure to make the democratic process work better.

Further, I found the book extremely readable and thought-provoking. I was particularly fascinated by his descriptions of Protestant theology; the book is worth reading just for these insights.

[Eitan Hershkovitz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of the most fascinating books I’ve read in a long time. It offers a compelling historical analysis of how Christianity and capitalism have been deeply intertwined, from the break away from Calvinism to the rise of modern evangelicals. I was surprised to learn how frequently Adam Smith is misquoted or misinterpreted—far from endorsing the unfettered capitalism of today, he was actually quite critical of it, advocating for universal public education paid for by the government and strong anti-monopoly measures. I also found it surprising that, for much of modern history (1500–1880), Christianity played a largely positive role in shaping capitalist economic thought through the Social Gospel, promoting ethical and communal responsibility. However, the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the rise of evangelicalism, paving the way for the hyper-individualistic, cancerous, barbaric, and exploitative conservatism we see today.

[Maynard Handley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is essentially three books in one. Whether you consider that a bonus or a detraction depends on what you want...

The first book matches the title; it discusses the genesis and rise of Calvinism, and how that shaped the intellectual climate of Mandeville, Smith, the Enlightenment, and the first few economists.

The second book is more a "Religion in Early America". It begins with the Puritans and so can be argued as a continuation of the first theme, but after the formation of the US proper, it becomes more of a "History of Christianity in the US, with occasional references to business". Think discussion of the Prosperity Gospel vs, alternatively, the Social Gospel.

The third book has the previous themes enter the 20th century, as we see (perhaps in reaction to communism, perhaps in reaction to modernity) the fusing of a certain theory of economics with a certain theory of christianity to eventually give us the religious right.

The first book I found satisfactory; nothing especially surprising but a nice summary of the material.

The second book was adequate, not great. It could have been far better if if had been more ambitious, covering eg Europe and Russia, not just the US, and even branching out to South America and colonization.

The third book was a waste of time. Nothing you aren't very much aware of, and without even interesting long duree historical context. For example, my guess is that there have always been these links between businessmen and the Church (think Cardinal Wolsey or Richelieu), and putting people like Pepperdine or Moody, or the friendship between Billy Graham and multiple presidents, in this longer context would have been far more helpful than simply repeating the story about them we already know.

[Bobby Pillote · Rating 2 out of 5]

300 pages in and I am putting this book down because it is unclear to me what, if any, argument the author is making. The central evidence supporting the thesis, that religion influenced the rise of capitalism, is that early economists also practiced some form of religion and/or engaged with moral philosophy. Apart from that obvious and unconvincing fact, the author substitutes argument for a dreary recitation of history. A better title of this book would be “An Overview of Moral Philosophy: 1700-Now” which of course would cause it to be shelved in the speciality Philosophy section and not the general interest area, saving us all from reading it. Worse still, the author begins to contradict his thesis in the back half of the book. More and more it is economic development (or “capitalism,” by the author’s telling) influencing religion. And if that’s the case, then what was the point of this book?

Skip this one. There are better histories of philosophy, economics and the industrial revolution out there; written by authors with a better sense of how to structure an argument.

[Remi · Rating 1 out of 5]

1/3 into the book and it remains unaddressed how religion and the rise of capitalism are connected, except that they occurred at the same time. Religion permeated society (for centuries already). Then capitalism rose. In this book, these two phenomena remain entirely separate stories.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an incredibly informative read. It not only served as a guide to how religion heavily influences capitalism and, in particular, American economic thinking, it was also a reminder of all the European history classes I took.

My biggest criticism would be that it occasionally feels like the narrative is sacrificed in the name of putting in as much information as possible. There are names, dates, and historical references galore, which is why there is over 100 pages of notes, bibliography, and indexes. But it is no doubt incredibly well researched and insightful!

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has a couple of very good features and some nonsense. Friedman does a superb job of tracing the historical development, especially in a US context, the development of various strains of religious thinking. He contrasts how theologians thought about whether humans were condemned or chosen and whether individuals could be saved from their "sins". Is history and salvation pre-ordained or can humans change?

The book also does a pretty good job of linking the development of economic thought and religious thinking. Adam Smith and many of his contemporaries were first and foremost thinkers in moral philosophy. And as Friedman points out the Scottish Enlightenment had lots of cross fertilization of ideas.

Finally the book does a good job of explaining the development of various American religious trends and attempts to link various flavors of religious thinking together. For example a group of protestant denominations first banded together as the Federal Council of Churches (later changed to the National Council of Churches - which is indicative of how many of the mainline denominations thought about their role - see the Federalist discussion of National versus Federal in #39).

But where I think the book falls down is in two key areas. First, at some point in the development of the social gospel movement thinkers began to argue that government needed to be involved in solving humanity's problems. And Friedman seems to be supportive of that evolution. But there is good reason to suggest that many of the expansive thoughts by progressives in the early part of the 20th century (with an inherent trust in how easy it would be to mold human nature with the right set of science and thinking). An underlying assumption for the Constitution's founders was a profound skepticism for that kind of thinking.

The other place where I think he falls down in repeating uncritically the criticism of many on the left that many red state voters vote against their self interest. I see that very differently. Economics has both a positivist and normative strain. The conservatives who seem to vote against supporting a vast expansion of the coercive power of government may well be voting with their normative hats on - they may believe that "nullum prandium non es gratuitum" (There's no such thing as a free lunch).

I would recommend the book because of the history but I think Professor Friedman's philosophical explorations leave a lot to be desired.

[George Kettler · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really great book, that takes an interesting look not economics itself, but how the culture milieu in which we inhabit shapes the way we think about economics and other social sciences. When we think of academic disciplines, we tend to think of them as detached from the culture of the their researchers. Friedman does an excellent job of imploding this idea, showing how at each state of the development of the field of economics, the contemporary discussions around morality, religion and politics acted as driving force for the field, fueling and shaping research through heir particular cultural paradigm. This book is broken into three discrete sections books, which while seeming a bit disjointed from one another, together tell the story of how economic thought developed in the English speaking, Protestant world. Firstly, an examination of the enlightenment and its effects on the thinking of Adam Smith. Smith was a proffessor of moral philosophy, who happened to found the discipline of economics. Friedman does a good job of analyzing what the intellectual milieu Smith existed in, disecting the books he would have been reading, who he would be sharing his ideas with and the practical forces behind his actions. Secondly, a deep dive into Calvinism and how people in the England and the United States wrestled with the social and ethical problems brought by its theology. This was the part that for me felt a little out of place. On one hand, in 100 pages Friedman gives an awesome analysis of Calvinism and its development, on the other, he really missed a lot of opportunities to link to developments in proto capitalism (like the founding of the Dutch and British East India companies, the Acts of Enclosure, etc.) that I would have liked to see a lot more fleshed out, rather than getting into the nitty gritty of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Finally, how the story of how American theology and economic thought transformed over the last three hundred years. This is where Friedman's writing really shined. A meticulous record of how Americans relations to free markets are framed in religious terms, this part gives you a terrific insight into dozens of different American thinkers from all disciplines have wrestled with it. Covering everything from tariffs to the great depression to neo liberalism, this section covers it all.
Questions of economic policy are fundamentally moral questions, Smith understood this and Friedman's book does an outstanding job of driving that point home.

[Ryan Ward · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing. Less an exploration of how religion has influenced capitalism than a parallel history of both. The connection never really is made even though there is ample material to try to shape such a connection. About the best the book does is say that economic thinkers, particularly early ones, lived in an environment that was more explicitly shaped by religion, so it had to influence their thinking, they had religious books on their shelves, etc... The history of religious thought as it evolved in terms of economic and social thinking is detailed, but the main connection is never made. The chapters on Adam Smith and the alliance between conservative social and economic political groups are worth reading, but overall feels like an overlong missed opportunity that never really nails down its main argument. The book will be a great reference though.

[Philip Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

In depth treatment of the relationship between Christian and economic thought, tracing their impact on one another from the 17th century through to today, as the author seeks to discover why a statistically significant number of evangelicals in the US “vote against economic policy that would benefit them.” A fascinating read.

[automathom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as good as Tawney's. Not bad though. Author is sympathetic w/ capitalism but the book follows a convincing, if unoriginal, narrative. Book will be of special interest to others interested in the connection b/w religion, natural science, and political economy.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review title: A redeemed man in an improvable society

This study pivots around Adam Smith's founding document of capitalism The Wealth of Nations, which established the "invisible hand" linking supply and demand in the free-for-all of human self-interested behavior. Before Smith, religion (Christianity, as his focus is capitalism as embodied in the United States) posited economic breakdown because of the universal depravity of man, yet was forced to ponder the paradox that while "driven entirely by self-interest--'what a monster we Harbour in our bosoms' --we nonetheless understand that acting with apparent charity toward others is often in in our own interest." (p. 46). Smith's price-driven free market provided a systematic solution to the paradox that in fact our self-interested irredeemably depraved. behavior provides optimal outcomes for those around us.

After Smith, Friedman defines the impact of religion on capitalism along two continuums:

1. Predestination vs free will. Predestination, along with Total Depraved one of John Calvin's Five Points (p. 134), is the position that God has preordained who would be saved and who would not before the world was even created, so that no matter what we do with our lives our fate is unalterably set.

2. Premillennialism vs postmillennialism. While the Bible (both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Christian New) had much to say about the end of the world, much of it it is open to interpretations that result in large theological differences. Premillennialism is the belief that Jesus will take Christians out of the world before a great world-wide period of intense suffering and war called the Tribulation, at which point Jesus will come to earth establishing a millennium (thousand years) of his perfect kingdom before a final Apocalypse and a new heaven and new earth are created. Postmillennialism posits the millennium before the tribulation period and the Apocalypse, meaning that "not only is human history a story of improvement; the improvement itself is human caused." (p. 210)

While strict interpretation of predestination theology proved abhorrent (forcing Calvin to posit "limited atonement" as another of his Five Points, making the sacrifice of Christ on the cross of limited value) so that in early American politics and culture the "orthodox Calvinist doctrine of individual predestination was losing ground, but its transposition to the national level was gaining strength, with the spread of democracy now linked to the spread of the Gospel." (p. 276). Manifest Destiny was an economic and political implementation of religious doctrine. Premillennialism, despite its pessimism about the possibility of human progress (with human history spiraling downward toward a certain bad ending what point is progress if it is even possible?), proved more resistant to replacement with the postmillennial possibility of progression into the future. But after a string of failed predictions of the return of Christ in the mid 19th century "many Baptists and Presbyterians who had been attached to dispensational premillennialism gravitated toward a more postmillennial outlook, and with it an embrace of active reformist engagement." (p. 245). At the same time, scientists studying the progress of human societies in history and theologians like Jonathan Edwards argued that" increasing knowledge played an instrumental role in human progress too, making possible society's advance from each stage to the one that followed." (p. 215)

Note that Friedman is not arguing that these economists and economic theories are driven by personal religious beliefs. Rather, after spending nearly the first half of the book setting the stage for Adam Smith and his theories and those of contemporaries during the fertile Scottish Enlightenment in which they wrote, he has established clearly that "these ideas were all around them, not just in religious thinking but more broadly." (p. 226). As he states in his introduction to frame his argument :

The resulting influence of religious thinking on modern economic thinking, right from its origins, established resonances that then persisted, albeit in evolving form as the economic context changed, the questions economists asked shifted, and the analytical tools at their disposal expanded, right through the twentieth century. Although for the most part we are not consciously aware of them—this is why their consequences seem puzzling whenever we stumble across them—especially in America these lasting resonances with religious thinking continue to shape our current-day discussion of economic issues and our public debate over questions of economic policy. (p. x)

Interestingly, however, as America matured through the 19th century, reuniting after the terrible Civil War and progressing through the Gilded Age of the "long 19th century" to the first World War, these religious and economic values and theories were increasingly "in harmony" (p. 251), so much so that Friedman titles his chapter on the period "The Clerical Economists." Washington Gladden, writing near the beginning of the 20th century, phrased the goal of his Social Gospel approach to economics as "a perfect man in a perfect society." (p. 303) My review title is a reference to how I would rephrase Gladden's motto based on my personal spiritual beliefs.

Gladden was joined by Richard Ely in the same decade who sought to improve on Adam Smith's recipes of things government should not do by defining "a more active interventionist orientation . . . by which public policy, implemented by government, could improve on the status quo." (p. 324), with the church taking an active role in showing "what ought to be." (p. 325). Ely was instrumental in forming the American Economic Association, which included 23 Protestant ministers among its 181 founding members, and defining its purpose to "study seriously the second of the two great commandments" which Jesus placed foremost: to love thy neighbor as thyself (p. 327).

By the dawn of the 20th century, those who favored the first side of each continuum tended to favor the Gospel of Wealth ("wealth is moral", wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson): laissez-faire free enterprise in the hands of wealthy industrialists and big business who give back through private philanthropy and personal religious charity and commitment. The Social Gospel we met above was mostly favored by postmillennialists, but in either case most American Christians had abandoned strict Calvinist predestination and the influence of the millennialism debate on economic policy was somewhat muted until two major shifts in the new century: The rise of Fundamentalism in opposition to the "Modernism" movement that attempted to move Christian theology away from traditional orthodoxy, and then the Great Depression which showed the foundational cracks at the core of laissez-faire capitalism pushed the intersection of religion and economic policy back to the top of the debate agenda and injected a new hardening of contradictory opinions into the debate. The fundamentalists refocused on individual redemption and revivalism (no predestined fate here) while the rise of communism and the failure of social attempts to alleviate suffering put an end to postmillennial optimism in future progress by governments.

Friedman places the threat of communism after the second World War at the center uniting "America's religious conservatives and economic conservatives" (p. 372) because of its triple threat to democracy, free market capitalism, and Christianity. When international communism collapsed under the forceful conservative and Christian leadership of Ronald Reagan's, "the affinity that that threat created between conservative Protestantism and conservative economic attitudes has survived the demise of communism and therefore the disappearance of the threat itself." (p. 389). The symbiotic relationship between evangelical Christianity (see my recent review of The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald) and conservative politics in the fold of the Republican Party has persisted and accelerated in the 21st century, even when the political positions of that party run counter to the beliefs and best interests of those who hold them, concludes Friedman in a too-short final chapter.

I think Friedman's idea is a sound one and his arguments valid, but I'm only giving it three stars. As important as it is to understand Adam Smith and his times, it feels like he spent too much there and was writing to a page limit so that his coverage of the last couple of decades feels rushed. The book was published in 2021 and written late enough to reference COVID-19 as the latest sign of the impending apocalypse for the now almost-exclusively premillennialist conservative Christian position, so he would have had time and certainly enough material to say more about the descriptive and (even more usefully) prescriptive applications of his theoretical construct to economics, Christianity, and conservativism in the Trump era. His footnotes and bibliography are useful and I have already added two of his references to my reading wish list to go further.

[Fraser Kinnear · Rating 4 out of 5]

The central argument of this book is that our ideas about economics and economic policy have long-standing roots in religious thinking.

How?

… the creators of modern economics lived … when belief in predestination was in retreat among English-speaking Protestants. I argue that what opened the way for the early economists’ insight into the beneficial consequences of individually motivated initiative carried out in competitive markets was the expanded vision of the human character and its possibilities that the movement away from predestinarian Calvinism fostered. Further, this benign sense of our human potential, enabled by the historic transition in religious thinking that first preceded and then accompanied it, has continued to influence the trajectory of modern Western economic thinking ever since.

Friedman’s centerpiece is the influence of Christian theological debate on Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like Hume and Smith. But he also looks forward in time and backward in time, spotting other instances of intellectual prior art.

For example, the benefits of balanced conflicting interests may date back to Augustine:

A more optimistic way of thinking about the practical consequences of self-interest, especially in the economic sphere, first emerged late in the seventeenth century, in France. Oddly, the fount from which this optimism developed was a group within the Roman Catholic Church that took a harshly negative view of the human character. The Jansenists—followers of the Dutch-Belgian bishop Cornelius Jansen, who had been active in Paris as well—were Augustinians, committed to St. Augustine’s view of the centrality of sin in human existence. But Augustine also held that the behavior spurred by sin is, in some degree, the remedy for sin. Man’s socially destructive impulses are partly held in check, he thought, by other human desires that are also the consequence of his sinful nature. As a result, men have some ability, albeit limited, to live together peaceably. (Augustine similarly saw human institutions such as marriage, slavery, private property, and the state as partial remedies for pervasive sinfulness.)

Or pro-growth theories all the way back to Aristotle (and, referenced elsewhere, Montesquieu):

Aristotle had suggested that higher living standards foster democracy. [Aristotle, Politics, Bk. 6, Ch. 5, 375.] Hume now argued that a higher material standard of living promotes “industry, knowledge and humanity,” and ultimately liberty. [Hume, “Of Refinement in the Arts,” 302; 313; 306] Higher living standards brought the spread of science, improved prospects for self-government, more benevolent behavior, and more polite manners. The theme of material progress leading to moral improvement ran throughout his later History of England, and in time it became a centerpiece of Enlightenment thinking.

Despite its title, Friedman isn’t only interested in economics (let alone capitalism). Perhaps this is because, as Kuhn would point out, authors like Smith and Hume were writing and inventing during a time when theories around economics and psychology were not mature enough to be distinct fields. As a result, I came away interested in reading Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, which Friedman describes in the following way:

Wholly apart from the danger to our moral character, Smith offered a sophisticated psychological argument for thinking that many people are misguided not just in their desire for specific objects they might buy but even in their aspiration for a higher material standard of living overall. The reason, he believed, is that they fail to anticipate that getting used to some new living standard—either higher or lower—will change the way they see matters. “The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life,” he wrote, “seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another”: between riches and poverty, as well as between obscurity and having a public reputation. To the contrary, it was a never-failing certainty that all men, sooner or later, will accommodate themselves to whatever becomes their permanent situation. Because of this human capacity to adapt to whatever life brings us, his beloved stoics had been right that “between one permanent situation and another there was, with regard to real happiness, no essential difference.”

Such are the moral tendons that join personal morality to communal economics. It’s no wonder that Friedman found so much content from which to draw his argument.

These days, I find Girard in everything I read. Here’s the moment from this book:

Calvin went on to define original sin, which all humans acquired from Adam’s sin, as “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul.” Nor was original sin a matter of our being punished for what was merely our ancestors’ error. “This is not liability for another’s transgression,” Calvin insisted. “We through his transgression have become entangled in the curse…not only has punishment fallen upon us from Adam, but a contagion imparted by him resides in us.”

And, somehow, the most recent books I’ve read also find resonance. A week after I read Lock’s Two Treatises, I find Friedman using Locke to counter Calvin (and Girard):

Locke’s tract on the Reasonableness of Christianity, published just the next year, was part of this attack on the Calvinist doctrines of depravity and predestination. Locke acknowledged the centrality to Christianity of the biblical story of the Fall, but he rejected outright the claim that Adam and Eve’s failing contaminated all humans forevermore. “It is obvious to any one, who reads the New Testament,” he began, “that the doctrine of redemption…is founded on the supposition of Adam’s fall. To understand, therefore, what we are restored to by Jesus Christ, we must consider what the scripture shows we lost by Adam.”

And, in greater detail, here is Locke implicitly rejecting Girard’s theory of culture:

Beyond arguing from his own close reading of scripture, Locke also brought his expertise as a political theorist to bear on the question. Drawing on Hobbes’s well-known discussion in Leviathan of what justified one person’s standing as a representative of someone else—an issue that had been at the center of the conflict between king and Parliament in the 1640s (and that would figure again in the debates leading up to the American Revolution)—Locke asked what made Adam a legitimate representative of the entire human race to such an extent that his sin could affect all of his progeny. In advancing the doctrine of depravity, Calvin had written that “Adam was not merely the progenitor but, as it were, the root of human nature; and that therefore in his corruption mankind deserved to be vitiated.”

I saw a similar argument employed the same way in Locke’s First Treatise, which is arguably about the impossibility of justifying any sort of inheritance.

There’s loads more in this book. But I was disappointed in a promise made early on that I don’t think Friedman kept. I didn’t find a truly compelling argument explaining (either through justifying or contradicting) the contemporary progressive argument that many (poor) conservative voters are incoherently voting for policies that work against their interest. There is plenty of content about gospel of Wealth and Great Awakening, etc., but not enough connecting the dots to modern behavior.

[Miguel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The treatment of Adam Smith in terms of looking at his overall career, thought and work was exceptional here. I would gladly read anything that Friedman would care to write about Smith and found myself highlighting much of the first 4 chapters that discuss this topic. The subsequent chapters dealing with religious thinkers especially in early America were less interesting personally although one can certainly appreciate the scholarly detail here. The work as a whole solidified prior assumptions that much of what we see in modern US politics and social attitudes are deeply driven by earlier adherence and belief in concepts like prosperity gospel teachings and those few within the religious structures that put up objections were largely pushed aside. Overall, enjoyed the economics parts and the religious ones less so.

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Friedman traces in detail the ways that religious theology and thought influenced the study of economics in Western thought and how it continues to influence it today. Fascinating, as both subjects grapple with what makes society happy and does the most good.

Why I started this book: Intriguing title, and I love a good history.

Why I finished it: This history was jammed full, tracing the shifts in thought among educated elites and then general society. There were a lot of names, and for a while I lost the plot with the audio... 75% my fault and 25% that Friedman explained the history and then at the end tied it into his thesis, instead of weaving his thesis through out. Interesting to see the religious influence then and now on public views of economics.

[Richard Marney · Rating 5 out of 5]

A powerful book in its scope and insight around the role of theology and religious activism in the evolution of attitudes towards wealth and economic policies since before Adam Smith.

As advertised, the reader will take away a deeper understanding of many aspects of the seeming paradox between pro-rich tax and regulatory policies and the unquestioning support of the citizens whose welfare is most adversely affected.

Be prepared for a long and arduous trek through the book. Well worth the effort tho’!!

[Genae Matthews · Rating 3 out of 5]

Giving this three stars because though it presented the 'origins' of capitalism in a really interesting way (and also painted a nuanced portrait of Adam Smith), it was also trying to do too many things. At first, it read like a philosophy/history of phil book, but then it sort of became a general U.S. History book. There was way more historical context provided than was needed to make the actual argument I thought -- the book would have been a lot better had it stayed an intellectual history book the whole time, as the times when it did so were truly fantastic.

[Saffron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Covers pre-enlightenment thought which influenced Adam Smith and eventually reaches modern American politics and the consequences of various religious movements on public policy. As someone with only cursory knowledge of Christianity, this book hugely informative. Helped clarify the differences between Catholicism and the countless permutations of Protestantism. Dry at times, deeply compelling at others.

[Arianne X · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wrong Hypothesis

Also, wrong title. A more accurate title for this book is 'Christianity and the Rise of Capitalism'. Not accidently, the title of this book is the same as the one by R.H. Tawney, viz., ‘Religion and the Rise of Capitalism’, 1922. The book under review by Benjamin Friedman can be thought of as the one-hundred anniversary update edition of the Tawney classic. The book by R.H. Tawney was in part a response to, and rebuttal of, the classic by Max Weber, ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’. Weber’s claim was the Protestant Christianity, viz., Calvinism, spurred personal behavior patterns suitable to capitalist organization.

Friedman’s thesis is that the way we look at the world today is simply based on fundamental background assumptions based on Christianity without us necessarily being aware of how deeply embedded this influence is but that it still shows in the way we equate economic success with moral perfection. Friedman claims that this underling Christian foundation is at the basis of the baffling and perplexing perspectives that cause people to support economic policies and practices contrary to their own interest such as lower marginal tax rates on the wealthy, elimination of inheritance taxes, deregulation of industry and business. There are parties who benefit by these polices, but not enough to carry an electoral mandate if people were voting their own interests.

Friedman’s point is that economic opinion and policy is still informed by the residue of religious thinking but without market participants, economic theorists and policy makers being explicitly aware of this influence. Friedman claims that modern economic thinking is still biased by Christian doctrine without it being explicit. It informs the background assumptions made about human nature and human behavior in formulating economic theories about markets. The assumption of rational individually motivated behavior in economic thinking is informed by the Christian doctrine but Christianity itself is a fragmented religion with many incompatible versions. The implication from Friedman's account is that economics is partly an empirical science, partly a formal system of rules and in great measure, a philosophical perspective still riddled with metaphysical assertions. All perspectives must be examined, especially the presuppositions contained within ethical and political models such as economics otherwise we become prisoners of the current reigning or even a past orthodox perspective. Just as Freidman can claim that religious attitudes effected economics we can also state that the natural evolution of economics effected religious outlook.

Alternative hypothesis:

Material realities are more important than religious fantasies. Friedman has it backwards. In his hypothesis he is reversing cause and effect. More accurately, economic conditions determine religious beliefs. That is, religious beliefs change in response to economic evolution; they change to accommodate a changing social consensus. Religious beliefs, philosophical perspectives, ethical practices and moral principles as well as notions about the self and human agency all arise from material conditions and our changing understanding of the world. Religious ideas and perspectives do not determine material conditions, they are determined by material conditions. Religious beliefs only magnify and reflect the prevailing social values and customs of the society in which it is imbedded.

My disagreement notwithstanding, the book is an excellent survey of the religious, economic, political and intellectual history of European and American thought from the early modern period forward and is still well worth reading.

I do not agree with Friedman’s analysis in that I find it unlikely that market participants, economic theorists and policy makers and influenced to such a significant extent by mysterious unknown forces of which they are unaware. I think it is much more likely that voters are actively manipulated. In one of my own books, I present that thesis that voters are fooled by their own aspirations for a hoped-for better life. They are deceived into thinking that they too could be wealthy if they only work hard enough. This provides a false alignment of values between the working and the wealthy. The working people have also been misled by real history in that there was a time, at least in the U.S. from roughly 1945 to 1980, when increasing overall economic prosperity did filter through society to create genuine social progress, but this was the result of tax policy and regulations. However, this history has been manipulated and used to build support for the untested hypothesis of trickledown economics. This expectation has set in with the sort of intellectual rigidly that takes considerable force to dislodge. I think this is why many voters support Republican candidates promising tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation even though such policies are of dubious benefit to most people. Most of the wealth created by these means accumulates at the top with wealth disparities in the U.S. growing ever more severe. What is most remarkable is that as the aggregate economy has continued to grow by almost any measure while income levels of working people have continued to fall by almost any measure.

The Republican elites sell these policies to the voting public by talking in the language of aspiration, hope, liberty and opportunity for all when in fact they are pursuing advantage, pleasure, license and privilege for a few. These elites get away with this because social solidarity based on economic status can be reliably and easily undermined by appeals to opportunity, liberty, patriotism, nationalism. Everyone can aspire to be wealthy. The least well-off are fooled into identifying with the most well-off rather than their true peers. The false narrative is that anyone can get ahead with hard work which just is not the state of reality. A narrative of aspiration and hope can easily overtake a reality of unpleasant facts.

Culture wars are generated, not for resolution, but to keep people divided and in constant conflict. This further diverts attention away from the commonalties of class or economic status. This is the social opening that the political right exploits by creating a false identity or alternative solidarity based on cultural issues. They set themselves up as role models of upward mobility for all to emulate with hard work and dedication. This is the sophistry used to get more productivity out of working and middle-class workers. This is how we get billionaire populism. In a society that pushes success and failure down to the individual level with a social premium on success and a social penalty on failure, it is difficult to rally people around failure. It is nearly impossible to bring people together to effect change based on their shared despair and despondency. No one celebrates failure or likes to be identified with it. Shared despair and despondency were the stuff of revolution at one time, but this path has been closed due to the social price one must pay for being identified with this group in a society which values individual success over all other possible outcomes. This path to revolution and reform is blocked. In reality, success and failure are often things that just happen to people owing to structural and systemic factors that get falsely individualized and thus misperceived. It is like trying to rally people on a shared sense of shame. Individuating the pathologies of the social consensus is the key to instituting them as permeant system features.

There is a role for fundamentalist Christianity, but not the one identified by Friedman. It aids by filling social voids and in providing a safety valve to relieve system pressure. Social pathologies and economic asymmetries are addressed with the individualized spiritual solutions of deliverance and salvation. This further undermines the motivation for social action to remedy real social pathologies and frees the policy makers to provide for their real constituents with polices such as tax cuts and deregulation that mean nothing to most workers personally, hurt the economy for the vast majority of middle income people but benefit the wealthiest segments of the population. This provides a double benefit to the wealthy in that these same easily fooled otherworldly fundamentalists form the most reliable worldly voting bloc in favor of these policies.

People are more easily mobilized by appeals to nationalism and greatness than to shared economic status in which individualized failure is stigmatized and social class is ignored. Nationalism is a much easier identification and provides a much wider net than a sense of shared economic, social or class status, which are by definition more-narrow even when they can be called out. This is not an effective appeal in a society that prizes individualism and personal success, especially in economics. The wealthy know that the most important appeal is to the aspirations of these voters rather than to their realities. The appeal is to imagination, or can I say simulation, rather than reality. The real war on reality.

[Neil Purcell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Friedman explains how Adam Smith's insights about economics were directly related to the religious thinking of his time, and how the development of economics as a discipline continued to be influenced after Smith's time by developments in Christian thought, with respect to predetermination, pre- and post-millenialism, the Gospel of Wealth, the Social Gospel, and Fundamentalism in America. The book is both a history of economic ideas from Smith to Keynes and a history of Christian religious ideas, with focus on those affecting economics, and with particular focus on how those ideas shape American culture today. We hear from Augustine and Martin Luther, from the early Puritans, and from Christian leaders across American history. If all that sounds boring or excessively complicated, I wish to assure you that Friedman succeeds in making it both interesting and accessible. What's more, he will convince you that these two intertwined streams of thinking are essential to understanding where we are today across a host of significant social, economic and political issues.

Friedman is very thorough in explaining how the development, over three centuries, of our economic thinking connected with developments in our religious worldview, and how the devastating events of the twentieth century and the rise of fundamentalism here have undermined our confidence in progress, our trust in human institutions, and our commitment to public programs of assistance for people in need.

The recent presidential election in America was widely reported to have been determined by inflation and general unhappiness with economic conditions, but there is much evidence that voters were also motivated by attitudes towards immigration; racial resentments; disapproval of sexual non-conformity generally and transsexuality in particular; dissatisfaction with COVID masking policies and vaccination requirements more broadly; conspiracy theories; distrust of government, the media, and universities; and concerns about religious freedom (principally the freedom to persecute LGBTQ people). If you are like me, you might have seen these as two completely separate categories - material, worldly, economic concerns, on one hand, and a set of issues involving cultural attitudes more or less connected with traditional norms and religious values, but the linkage between economics and religion is deeper than we might have imagined.

I think the social Gospel ideas of the early twentieth century, which led to anti-trust legislation, trade unions, the income and estate taxes, and the New Deal, deserve to be revived. I just don't see a foundation in America other than the Gospel which can persuade people to change course. We may already have passed the point, as suggested by recent steep declines in religious affiliation and participation, where religious thought leaders can spark a broad renewed commitment to issues of social justice and communitarian engagement, but even this atheist thinks it would be a good thing if they would try. Sadly, with rare exceptions, the Church today in America is far too comfortable with the glorified individualism, rampant greed, and distributive injustice of this new Gilded Age.

 

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compared to many other disciplines, the field of economics, as we know it today, is comparatively new. And when it first started becoming a discipline, it grew out of moral philosophy. Economic theories and analyses often belie this origin: they are, indeed, inseparable from a metaphysics, as well as an ethics.

Benjamin Friedman traces this evolution and how developments in religion from the Reformation to the 20th century (but especially the 18th century) influenced the rise of capitalism. Much of this centers on two fundamental contested elements of religion: the question of predestination and the question of eschatology. According to the Calvinist belief in predestination, nothing we can do on Earth can change whether or not we are ultimately "saved"; there is an elect, and we, mere mortal sinners, can do nothing to change that. Moving away from predestinarianism, a phenomenon with coincided with and influenced the revolution in economic thinking with which Adam Smith is associated, creates new possibilities for human choice and action -- it gives agency to the individual as an actor. Similarly, questions about millennalism in Christianity shape an understanding of human progress. If you believe that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is going to usher in a new millennium, then one defers progress -- it is not for us to do now; it will come later. But a postmillennialism -- in which the Second Coming occurs *after* a Golden Age -- puts the burden on human action: we have to create that Golden Age ourselves through our work. It's no surprise that such an attitude played a critical role in the emergence of the Social Gospel in the US in the late 19th and early 20th century.

There's plenty more than just this to unpack, and Friedman does quite a bit. As he points out, religion and economics in the US have been mutually influencing: religion is inseparable from the economic forces around it.

My main gripe with the book is that the title is somewhat of a misnomer. Friedman is much more focused on economic thinking and belief than he is on *capitalism* per se. The rise of capitalism is not just a matter of belief, but a matter of systems and structures. Religions and their dissemination have played a role in that as well, but it is an ancillary focus. And the book is very Anglo-American: tracing capitalism and the moral-religious-philosophical underpinnings of it from the UK and then to the US. But it doesn't continue on in the UK past the 18th century or venture much elsewhere in Europe (except for as a way of drawing contrasts or speaking of the influence of the German historical school of economics).

4.5 stars

[Yogi Travelling · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of the better books I have read in a while - as someone who is extremely skeptical with all religion (especially those concerned with 'dogmatic beliefs'), this book put the conservative western mind into perspective.

Capitalism is simply an experiment. An opportunity to improve society through the improvment of ourselves.

The problem arises when greed gets in the way. The foundation of greed is doubt, and doubt exists in the mind - when the mind is out of balance (when it is fighting with the heart) doubt arises by creating greed, in the form of fear.

There are two types of people in this world, those that 'think' (with the head) and those that 'feel' (with the heart) - many do both but in each one of us, one is more dominant than the other. When these two are imbalanced, fear arises; however with balance, we become free (from the clutches of belief and emotion).

Money is a tool to measure progress. Supply and demand (through capitalism) is pure logic - no emotions are required because once they become involved, so does 'fear' and 'greed'.

Imagine how life would be if society had no way to improve itself. Religion definitely has its limitations. We have seen so many times throughout history that all it does is create boundaries (a difference in idealogical beliefs) which has no choice but to lead to conflict and ultimately war. As North America started to populate after its founding, and at the same time with the development of Economics, Protestents developed a system where capitalism can be used (through the forces of supply and demand) to improve society (with the measurement of money).

Capitalism is an experiment, it is an opportunity to resolve the 'diametrically opposite forces' of logic with emotion (thinking vs. feeling) to bring them in harmony. To a place of balance / peace ultimately leading to freedom.

[Eugene A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don't let the low rating deter you from reading this book! While the author fails to deliver on his thesis, his work is highly thought-provoking and raises essential questions for others to answer. But read this widely-respected economist's book knowing the following limitations.

The author asserts that "economics and economic policy have long-standing roots in religious thinking." Readers would assume from his title that he would reveal the fundamental links between religion and capitalism. Rather than "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism," Friedman addresses Protestant Christianity and the Rise of America." Friedman does not address non-Protestant Religions and capitalism outside the United States. As evidence of straying from his thesis, Friedman does not define capitalism, leaving readers to substitute their understanding. Further, readers will find it irritating the author wanders into politics and social issues. Additionally, from time to time, Friedman sits upon an elitist perch looking down on "ordinary citizens" who don't have the judgment to vote for policies that benefit them.

However, there are many positives in the Harvard professor's book. Readers learn the impact on the US society of the decline of Calvinism and its predestination and depravity tenants. Friedman's identification of the competing protestant sects' "gospel of wealth" and "social gospel" is also insightful. Finally, Friedman sparks deeper thinking about the impact of religion on economics. Perhaps, he will pick up the mantel to expand his thinking to the effect of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and other faiths in capitalist societies inside and outside the US. America is not the world's only capitalist country, and non-Protestant religions have affected American society.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Benjamin Friedman is an economics professor at Harvard University. His Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (2020) is the latest in a line of books dealing with religion and capitalism. The first was sociologist Max Weber's 1905 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In 1922 the British historian R.H. Tawney published his Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, from which Friedman borrowed his title. All three deal with the role of religion—particularly Calvinism—as an agent supporting the widespread acceptance of the unfettered laissez-faire model of economic progress.

Friedman's book is a sweeping, well-argued, and deeply researched tale of the seeds of the "science" of economics in religious thought, beginning with the Scottish Enlightenment (Adam Smith and David Hume), continuing through the English Enlightenment represented by Isaac Newton and the Royal Society, and moving on to the American experience circa 1820-30. Friedman demonstrates how religion and science worked hand-in-hand to create the modern economy.

This book belongs on the Economic History/History of Economic Ideas bookshelf of anyone interested in the development of economics and of the modern world. My only caveat is that I found this a difficult book to read because of the remarkable range of ideas and sources covered in its 450 or so pages of text—each page has an observation, a quote, or a new voice that makes the reader pause and think; each page introduces you to a new contributor and his contribution to the link between religion and economics. It;s a book that requires stamina.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has such depth and breadth that it cannot be fairly reviewed in the space allowed; my full review can be found here

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four stars because the book brought out a great deal of nuance in the interaction of religious thinking and the development of economics, in particular with the peculiar behavior and viewpoints in the United States. While it did nothing to convince me that my observation of modern American fundamentalist Christians - that they studiously avoid any serious consideration of Christ's views on poverty and the poor, opting instead for a shocking "greed is good" mentality - it did a great deal to make me more aware of the nuances of these views, and how the lived experience of the last centuries profoundly affected religious thinking. The author's main theme is that economics is not separate from religious thinking, which ultimately is a lengthy discourse that economics rests on human behavior and thus differs massively from "hard" science, but an equally clear conclusion is how world events shapes religious thinking, no matter how vociferously most religious thinkers and believers will deny this.

This is a long trot through history, with many names and while broadly chronological, does jump back and forth a little in that journey. This was certainly at times quite tedious, and made me lean somewhat to three stars. I listened to this as an audiobook, and the narrator was excellent, which helped. Despite the endless lists of names and dates, tracking the themes was not complicated. I'm fairly new to audiobooks, and still usually prefer to read - but in this case, I think audio is the way to go.

[Erich · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant, essential rethink of how faith shaped economics. If you’ve ever thought the rise of modern capitalism was just a byproduct of markets getting smarter or states getting more organized, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism will absolutely upend that view and make you wonder why this isn’t more widely taught.

Benjamin Friedman takes us on a wide-ranging, masterfully argued journey showing that religious thought — especially the Protestant emphasis on moral improvement and human progress — was at the heart of early economic theory. Adam Smith wasn’t just some dispassionate economist scribbling formulas about markets; he was steeped in a moral vision of how people could (and should) better their condition.

Friedman does an incredible job connecting theology, philosophy, economics, and history without getting bogged down. It’s a book about ideas, but it’s also about peopl, Smith, Hume, Locke, and how their faith backgrounds shaped what they believed about wealth, work, and society.

Is it a little long in places? Sure. And occasionally I wished Friedman had pushed harder on how these religious ideas later mutated into more brutal, market-fundamentalist doctrines. But that’s a minor quibble compared to how much this book gets right.

If you want to understand not just how capitalism developed, but why early thinkers believed it was a moral good, this is essential reading. One of the smartest, most thought-provoking books I’ve read in years.

Highly recommended.

[han solo · Rating 4 out of 5]

don’t let the vibe fool you — this is a devastatingly interesting + incredibly well researched book. I loved the look into religion (in particular, the moral philosophies that arise from religious belief systems) and how it has influenced our understanding of / participation in the broader economy, from the pre Industrial Revolution era to the present day. Dry and dusty this is not! It’s also so fun to trace some of the friendships / influences that lead various famous thinkers (smith, Hume, Weber, Mill, Ely, et al) throughout the analysis he presents. Fascinating to think about our interpretation of what is moral (decrying the vanity of wanting more? glorifying wealth-seeking as single best way to serve humanity?) in the context of huge events in western history — the formation of America, the global showdown between capitalism v communism, the Great Depression… the only negative thing I have to say is that the last section of the book is less romantic and interesting than the rest. Perhaps the writer, in building and defending a strong case for the impact of religion on economics, doesn’t put much time into the impact of the reverse (economic realities impacting what an acceptable religious interpretation looks like to the rest of society).

[Joshua Virani-Wall · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a bit dense at times with the details of what specific people’s philosophies were. Great if you are a philosophy buff but for the average reader looking to get a more macro perspective it can be a little inaccessible. This is the only thing preventing me from giving 5 stars. It’s a completely subjective opinion, but I would guess that a large portion of readers would feel the same.

The book offers a comprehensive history of religious ideas in Britain and then in America since Britain’s conversion to Protestantism. One thing I loved was that this book followed a linear path across time instead of hopping between different dates and relying on the reader’s knowledge of history to understand the cultural context that existed during various points in time.

The main thesis this book put forward was that religious beliefs underly the creation, development and ongoing evolution of the current economic system (based in competitive markets) we now see in America and much of the western world. This argument was very interesting and offered a new perspective without being outlandish.