Religion, Philosophy and Economics: a thought

Recently, while reading about the history of religions, I read that several founders of world religions, like, Christ, Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha were born and lived in 1st millennium BC. Now to me, this is not a mere coincidence that all these religious leaders lived at the same time as the Greeks, and specifically the time of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and so on. These names as you must be familiar with are considered as the forefathers of philosophy. So, it can be said to be the time when critical thinking was evolving in society. People were questioning, and trying to understand the world and its ways. This makes me think that can't it be the case that, with all due respect, the religious leaders were nothing else but great philosophers. Religion, when I see its underlying pillars or principles, most of them speak about a way of life. If people like Socrates and Plato were thinking critically about such issues, it might as well be that in different parts of the world such philosophers would be thinking about such topics as well. Now, I am no theologist but can't it be the case that these philosophers, in different regions, attracted people with their philosophies, which later became the followers of that 'school of philosophy' or later the modern religion which we see today. 

The reason why I wish to emphasise this point is that these religious leaders, as I see in society, are seen as out of the world possessing super-powers. Now, indeed, these were extremely smart beings, having the capability of such critical thinking. Therefore, from the perspective of their thinking abilities and their philosophies, they indeed should be revered. But it's worth thinking that they need not have been heavenly instead they just might have been great philosophers. And so, if we really need to pay homage to these philosophers, it should be done by following their philosophies. However, history is evident that instead of following their ideas, their philosophies, we try to adjust them as per our needs. For example, the writings and thoughts of Plato and Socrates spoke about economies of city-states living in harmony, speaking about 'just' prices and no exploitation, writing about economies which is not-greedy and survive in peace. But while they were writing, Athens and Sparta started fighting. And so, I feel, as time progressed, these philosophies included rituals for our own satisfaction or needs.

Now thinking about the way the religious model works, I see a similarity with the Solow model. The Solow model has a simple basic framework and it does have some explanatory power in understanding the world around us. But as one of the short-comings, the long-run growth in this model comes from an exogenous factor. So, although it does provide a good simple explanation behind long-term growth, it is attributed to an exogenous factor - "A" or set of factors, a vector of A.

I see different religions, again with all due respect, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity etc as different models trying to explain the world around us. But the shortcomings of these religious models is that similar to Solow's case, the major explanatory power comes from their "A" factor, which they call as God.

For example, if I ask how humans have come on earth or how did our solar system form. There are complex scientific models of cosmology, there are evolutionary processes which can describe them while being consistent with the observations. Yes, in science also several different theoretical models and theories are trying to explain the world but science is more liberal in a way that as new evidence keeps on coming, it keeps on narrowing the realistic theories, neglecting the one's which contradict the observations. 

Coming to religious model, if I ask the same set of questions about human existence or formation of the solar system, it would be attributed to an exogenous "A" factor, the God. Moreover, the amount of explanatory power which this A has, well it's quite large. In a way, so large, that at times it evens fit noise. The religious models, therefore, feels like an over-fit model because there's no room for its improvement and there's nothing which, for religious people, that religion can't explain. There are no uncertainties in religion, making me more confident about their over-fitting nature. Besides, because of this nature of the religious models, all the different religions or models, feel confident about their own model's fit to the world around them - their data points. Although all religions are over-fitted models, some are more over-fitted than others, and these extremely over-fitted models have so contained parameter space that there's no scope for the existence of other models or religions, leading to in-tolerance. 

To religious people, the scientific models have a limit till which it can explain the world around us. The over-fitted, religious models make their followers see this as the limitation of the scientific models. The religious models being able to explain, although exogenously, the phenomenon where the scientific models don't any explanation makes them feel superior. To push scientific models to this arena where they fail, the religious people keep on asking "Why". What I mean by this is, take, for example, taking the conversation between religious model proponent (RM) vs scientific model proponent (SM) on why are leaves green. 

SM: Now, the scientific model would say because it absorbs all the lights of the sun but reflects only the green light.

RM: Why it reflects only green light, why not other light?

SM: Because there's this chemical chlorophyll which uses the red side of the spectrum to power the chemical reaction inside leaves leaving the unused green light 

RM: Why does chlorophyll only use other light to power the reaction? Why not others use green?

SM: Well there are many theories not we don't know for sure. Sun emits green colour the most. So, one possibility is that absorbing full sunlight would create unnecessary overheating which would destroy pigments and would not lead to improved efficiency or output. So, the top part of the leaf absorbs most colour and a slight amount of green, which is then absorbed by the deeper layer. But rest of the green is reflected back So, its good to reflect some green light. Another theory is that most of the plant life earlier was underwater. There existed halobacteria's which were good at absorbing green and reflect purple. But these lived at relatively higher levels in water than plants. So, since green was absorbed by these bacteria, plants were left with other colours which made their pigments evolutionarily to absorb other colours than green. A recent study tells that plants are not trying to absorb most light but light which fluctuates least. So, the colours they absorb help them regulate the amount of light they take in. The plant averages out the absorbance from different wavelengths making it resilient to light shocks. Different wavelengths actually fluctuate independently. So, evolutionary they absorb all, but green being most abundant gets reflected back too.

RM: Well despite all this complex science you still don't know with certainty because it's difficult to understand gods creation. You have theories but you still don't know a simple answer

I would disagree with this because the mere fact that the RM could ask why and get an answer (at least a few layers of depth before SM acknowledging the limitations of science) is science itself. And unknowingly the RM was flowing scientifically, asking why's. That is what science does. But somehow after an extent, the RM switched towards the exogenous model, explaining everything by its "A".

I do not say that science is superior to religion. I feel it wrong to compare them. There should not be a competition between them. Science is about understanding nature and its working. And, I feel that religion has more of a philosophical bent with major impacts on psychology and so it's required in society as well. Now, when I speak of religion, I mean belief in religious practices and rituals. 

The reason I feel people go into religious rituals and refrain from science and scientific explanation can be thought through the lens of what's happening in the economic world today. 

We know that there's a wave of anti-globalization passing through the globe. One of the major reason is that the promises that globalization had offered in the 1970s, of improved living standards, better job prospects and win-win trade theories, they do not seem to happen. It was understood even back then, and there are trade theories which tell us too that the win-win as a result of the trade is broad but at relatively finer levels there would be losers. However, by redistributing the gaining sector, the overall win-win environment could be made. The policies, therefore, were made to full-fill what economic science had put forward and people were hopeful. But what happened was politics. The people didn't receive benefits and the gaining sectors flourished. Income inequalities rose. This became yet another evidence in the minds of people about failures of science, in specific, failures of theories over practices or reality. So, even when science provides logically consistent and excellent theories and explanations, people who believe in them and face failures in life then eventually turn to religion, which assuages and provide sincere condolences. Even in marketing classes, this is one of the lesson these days. Rather than providing scientific basis or composition of the product, make them approved by society. So, a toothpaste commercial instead of showing composition of toothpaste should be approved by a dentist.

The basic premise of rejecting science I feel is its failure to deliver, many a time due to politics. So when science and its laws fail to deliver, there's no one to protect from losses. The stakes in such times are high, especially for people who near the border of income hierarchies. So, thinking from the regret theory point of view, at such points, religious practices become their saviour. Solution - having policies and reduced corruption levels so that the science can preach what it teaches. 

The constricted parameter space in the religion also gives birth to a great number of biases. For example, the omission bias, confirmation bias and more. This makes me think that irrational exuberance might have some intrinsic connection with religion as well.