Social Thinking in Established Protestant Churches

Waterman, A. M. C.

doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4401-8_4

Cited by 2 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In his subsequent writing, Waterman makes much of this process to explain why modern orthodox economics is in the autonomous position (a position he favours). For instance, Waterman (1999, pp. 51‐67, and 2001, pp.…”

Section: The Autonomous Views Of Anthony Watermanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reason for their parting of the ways, according to Waterman, was that the problem of scarcity became “recognized scientifically” only for the first time in the work of Malthus (a clergyman); “ineluctable laws of nature produce poverty and inequality … Why then does God create a world in which most human beings must live in ‘misery’ or ‘vice’ ”? (Waterman, 1999, pp. 56‐7; original emphasis).…”

Section: The Autonomous Views Of Anthony Watermanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather than mentioning all the autonomous 19th and early 20th century advocates approvingly cited by Waterman (1999), we can specify a 20th century representative, William Temple. Unlike his contemporary, Tawney (1913, p. 72), who believed that “there is no such thing as a science of economics”, Temple (1942, p. 72) acquiesced to the autonomous “technical” nature of relations between cause and effect in the political and economic areas.…”

Section: The Autonomous Views Of Anthony Watermanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike his contemporary, Tawney (1913, p. 72), who believed that “there is no such thing as a science of economics”, Temple (1942, p. 72) acquiesced to the autonomous “technical” nature of relations between cause and effect in the political and economic areas. Waterman (1999) concludes by highlighting the two most prominent economists of the mid‐20th century discussing Christianity, Denys Munby and Frank Knight, who continued the justification for the autonomous technical and scientific nature of economics from theology. Two problems with Temple, Munby and Knight are that they used such terms as “technical” uncritically, and they made no assessment of whether socio‐economic principles intended for contemporary application might derive from primary sources of Christian belief itself.…”

Section: The Autonomous Views Of Anthony Watermanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An unreferenced conversation with Richardson was published in that bulletin in 1998 in which he does not appear to have changed his outlook markedly. Other economists outside the Catholic tradition might have published more than Richardson on economics‐Christian‐related issues, such as Elzinga (1999), Heyne (1994, 1996, 1999), Iannaccone (1992, 1993, 1998) and Waterman (1987, 1988, 1991, 1999, 2001). Unanimity does not exist between all these economists in justifying their interdependency or autonomous positions, but the reason for examining Richardson first is that his Christian‐related writing relates more pointedly to justifications for those positions in a contemporary context than the Christian‐related work of the other economist‐Christians.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The autonomy of economics from Judeo‐Christian thought: a critique

Beed

2003

International Journal of Social Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the contemporary relation between economics and Judeo‐Christian thought, Smith identifies three positions. These are disciplinary autonomy for economics, disciplinary interdependence between economics and Christian thought, and distinctively Christian economic analysis. Little evaluation has been made of these positions. Two representatives, as Smith classifies them, of the disciplinary autonomy and interdependence positions are evaluated from the distinctively Christian economic analysis viewpoint. Unlike Smith's classification, both J. David Richardson and Anthony Waterman are assessed as belonging to the disciplinary autonomy group, in which mainstream orthodox economic science is allegedly able to proceed independent of religious input. This position is criticized insofar, as Richardson's major and influential paper in the area (1988) is found to disregard any appraisal of the contribution of modern orthodox economic theory to the explanation of real world processes, and to overlook the contribution Christian thought might make to economic explanation. Both Richardson and Waterman assume an understanding of the “science” in economic science that is problematic, while Waterman utilizes arguments from the philosopher Leslek Kolakowski, and the economist Frank Knight, that are contestable from a Christian perspective.

show abstract

Section: The Autonomous Views Of Anthony Watermanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Autonomous Views Of Anthony Watermanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Autonomous Views Of Anthony Watermanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Autonomous Views Of Anthony Watermanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The autonomy of economics from Judeo‐Christian thought: a critique

Beed

2003

International Journal of Social Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Socio-economic Principles in Contemporary Islamic and Judeo-Christian Thought

Beed

2003

Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Principles applicable to socio-economic life contained in two modern interpretations of Islamic economic thought, and in two modern Judeo-Christian interpretations are compared. The relevance of this investigation is that these two religious systems encompass over fifty percent of the world’s population, and the percentage is believed to be increasing gradually. The four interpreters claim that each of their belief frameworks is replete with normative theological principles of direct implication to contemporary socio-economic life. As such, the two religions pose a challenge to secular economic frameworks of thought that eschew religious or theological input. The four interpreters are all economists who profess allegiance to their systems of belief. The comparison reveals a marked similarity in normative theological socio-economic principles between Islam and Judeo-Christianity, as interpreted by the authors examined. Seven comparable principles are derived from the four interpreters in the second section of the paper, ranging from their conjoint emphasis on the necessity for employment to be provided to all people, to their focus on the importance of an equitable distribution of the fruits of production. Two of the principles are investigated more closely in the third section. The first relates to the participatory nature of work and the ways in which it might contribute to people becoming economically independent. The second concerns the stress on reducing inequalities in the distribution of wealth and income, and to the way in which the reform of employment organisation can contribute to this end.

show abstract

Social Thinking in Established Protestant Churches

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

The autonomy of economics from Judeo‐Christian thought: a critique

The autonomy of economics from Judeo‐Christian thought: a critique

Socio-economic Principles in Contemporary Islamic and Judeo-Christian Thought

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About