Religion and the Invisible Hand

Benjamin H. Mitra-Kahn writes (6 January) HERE on:

“How God, Adam Smith, and the invisible hand changes over time” ([Cross-posted from the History of Economics Playground HERE):

“So with a suitably provocative title I think we can declare 2012 open. And in starting the year I was struck by how words and sentences can change in meaning over time, particularly prompted by this quote:

‘In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency”

It looks like an elegant statement of policy intent from a finely crafted presidential speech and we all know what it means. And it was exactly that, but the meaning may not be entirely clear when I tell you that the president was George Washington and the words were uttered in 1789. There is a lot of discussion of what the invisible hand means, or doesn’t mean (e.g. Kennedy 2009), but lets stick with Washington and his first inaugural speech to Congress.

Out of context it could have been any current president. With a little bit of context – here the surrounding sentences – it starts to become a very 18th century statement. That ‘Great Author’ or ‘Providential Agency’ is quite definetly a deity of some form, and then it is left to the rest of us to work out how Washington – who had a copy of Smith’s work on the shelves – had read Adam Smith’s expression of an invisible hand (or some previous reference to it). I’m partial to the religious side, but may have been swayed by Andy Denis (2005) – what do you think?”

Comment
But George Washington could have taken the notion of “an invisible hand” from any of a dozen or more books on his shelves from predecessors or contemporaries of Adam Smith. It was a popular metaphor among many authors, particularly among theologians and church ministers in their sermons.

For a list of around forty 17th-18th-century authors using the IH metaphor, see Peter Harrison (an Oxford professor of Theology) in the Journal of the History of ideas, September, 2010). Both Harrison and the memorable Andy Denis (Andy Denis (1999) ‘Was Adam Smith an Individualist?’ History of the Human Sciences 12, 3, August, 71-86), hold the view that Adam Smith was a Calvinist and/or Deist.

I do not share religious interpretations of Adam Smith, for reasons explained in my paper: ‘The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Theology’ Journal of the History Economic Thought, September, Vol 33, no 3, 2011.

For my earlier views on Adam Smith’s use of the IH metaphor, see: Kennedy: 2009: ‘Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand: from Metaphor to Myth’, Econ Journal Watch, vol 6, no 2, May 2009, pp 239-263 HERE

For more my recent statements, see: www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com, passim, 2010-11.

Adam Smith and "Neo-Liberalism"

Mike Norman writes the Mike Norman Blog HERE

“Neoliberalism for dummies

“My contention is that the invisible hand of Adam Smith is the god of 18th century Deism that creates the universe and then lets it operate automatically in accordance with the laws of nature He has ordained.

This is one reason that economics as a discipline compares itself to physics. Another is Smith's association with his contemporary Isaac Newton, who influenced Smith's thinking about natural processes. While my view of direct influence is rejected by some Smith scholar's for lack of evidence, it seems that even if Smith was not directly influenced by either Deism or Newton, these were dominant ideas of his time and his work arguably reflects these overarching themes.

However, as Smith scholars correctly observe, Adam Smith cannot be blamed for spawning neoliberalism, which is a bastardization of his ideas by some New Classical economists, as well as New Keynesians, subsequent to the marginal revolution ushered in by Alfred Marshall. Marshall himself cautioned against using his ideas in a simplistic fashion to draw unwarranted conclusions from mathematical models. Marshall realized that economic models are thinking aids and not expressions of either natural laws or God-given ones.

What began as political economy with Adam Smith and David Ricardo has become theological economy under Milton Friedman and neoliberalism. It is a theology that the privileged are using to exploit the credulity of the masses with yet another superstition.”

Comment
Mike Norman seems to be close to being on the right track, and should be commended for that. However, being close is not the same as being correct.

Ship’s captains searching for landfall at Pitcairn Island in the Pacific, and using contemporary charts with the first discoverer’s position on them, missed the island by many miles, until later Royal Navy navigators rediscovered it and, accidently found out the truth of the disappearance of Fletcher Christian after the Bounty mutiny. They corrected their charts for it thereafter. **

The “invisible hand” in the 17th-18th Centuries was indeed a popular metaphor with orthodox (not Deist) religious preachers, sermon writers and others. Among the others were: Shakespeare in Macbeth –a murderer not God; there were also: Daniel Defoe in Moll Flanders and Colonel Jack; Voltaire, in Oedipe; Glanvill; Dufesnoy; Lenglet; Rollin; Bonnet; Robinet; Walpole; Kant; and Reeve (for details, see: Kennedy: Adam Smith: a moral philosopher and his political economy, 2nd ed. 2010, pp 150-52). For a fully comprehensive list of religious references, see: Peter Harrison, “Adam Smith and the History of the Invisible Hand”, History of Ideas, September 2010.

Whether Adam Smith saw the metaphor in a deist context remains controversial, but he was not a believer in the revealed religion of Christianity (See Kennedy: “The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Theology”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, September, 2011). It is stretching it to say that Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was Smith’s (1723-90) “contemporary”.

That Adam Smith admired Isaac Newton is evident in Smith’s History of Astronomy (1744-c50, published posthumously in 1795). I believe that the marginal revolution and Marshall’s early contributions, leading to the mathematical dead-end of neo-classical economics, had more to do with the 19th-century mathematics prevalent when Marshall was alive than the calculus of Newton a hundred years earlier. Modern physicists and mathematicians are reported to be “amused” at what modern economists considered to be “advanced mathematics, as so much had moved on since the late 19th century, with which economists consider to be their “hard science”.

Smith certainly cannot be “blamed for spawning neo-liberalism” and modern economics, as taught (preached!) with religious zealotry and intoned by some politicians in the 21st century. Both interest groups, adding to their assertions their modern myths of Smith’s meaning when he used (only twice) the invisible hand metaphor in his published works.

Mike Norman is absolutely correct in drawing attention to Alfred Marshall’s cautions about using mathematics as anything more than “teaching aids”. Adam Smith would probably approve of Mike’s summary:

“It is a theology that the privileged are using to exploit the credulity of the masses with yet another superstition.”

So, well done Mike Norman. Have a good holiday.

** See my Kennedy, Captain Bligh: the man and his mutinies, Duckworth, 1989

Comic-book Racism and Nonsense About Adam Smith

James Lewis writes in American Thinker “The Parasite Left” HERE

“Retroviruses are like a speedboat full of grinning Somali pirates who go careering hundreds of miles into the Atlantic to take over passing supertankers, by randomly firing off their ancient AK-47's at anybody on board. When they succeed, they get great big ransom payments from Lloyds of London. Everybody's happy, and the pirates go back to Mogadishu and make a lot of little baby pirates.” …

“Gordon Brown is a thrifty Scot, 'tis true, but he's also a True Believer in the all-knowing and all-mighty State, which is much more to the point. Adam Smith was also a Scot, but as Professor of Moral Theology -- and therefore a believer in the immortal soul -- Smith would hardly approve of cannibalizing one's loved ones for parts. Adam Smith admired free markets, but only for moral and responsible people.”

Comment
A typical hyperbolic piece written by a man with a theme into which whatever passes by his attention is fitted.

But themes should be based on facts, especially those that may be checked. Even allowing for slips of the kind that anybody might make in a first draft, consider the racist, comic-book rubbish written by James Lewis quoted above.

Memo to proof-readers [?!]: at American Thinker: Somalia is in East, not west, Africa, and the Somali pirates have a very long was to go to get to the Atlantic. They find the Indian Ocean more convenient for their depredations.

2nd memo to proof readers and facts checkers:

“Adam Smith was also a Scot, but as Professor of Moral Theology -- and therefore a believer in the immortal soul -- …”.

As this is a lynch-pin for James Lewis’ rant, please note that Adam Smith was a professor of moral philosophy from 1751-64 at Glasgow University. He was never a professor “moral theology” (whatever that is supposed to mean).

There is no evidence that Adam Smith believed in an “immortal soul”, indeed there is considerable evidence that he did not so believe – see my paper, “THE HIDDEN ADAM SMITH IN HIS ALLEGED THEOLOGY”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Volume 33, Number 3, September 2011.

Included in this evidence is the hostility of George Horne, President of Magdalene College, and later the Bishop of Norwich (Horne [Anon.] 1777) who attacked Smith for praising David Hume and, interestingly, for not mentioning in TMS that ‘belief in the soul’s existence and immortality could do no harm, if it did no good’ (Corr. No. 189, 230).

In short, James `Lewis was factually incorrect in his American Thinker article, and should try to do better before he refers to Adam Smith - or the geography of Somalia - next time.

Watch the Use of Careless Thinking

B.P. Terpstra, writes (10 July) on Weekend Libertarian (HERE):

‘Too Posh To Push? Adam Smith On Marriage Politics’

‘Adam Smith (a Christian-sounding deist) frequently cited the Bible (“Abraham weighs to Ephron the four hundred shekels of silver which he had agreed to pay for the field of Machpelah” –p. 19) and unashamedly talked of “savage nations” (I have one foot-binding Middle Kingdom in mind -p. 5).

He’d be shunned today by multicultural libertarians and socialists alike for talking about social values because they have nothing to do with economics, according to our modern politically-correct elitists. But of course they do. By way of example, Smith wrote “Marriage is encouraged in China, not by profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns, several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence” (pp. 45-46).

Horrid, indeed. Like Jesus, Smith wasn’t afraid to make statements linking wealth to morality. Even rich European ladies who were too posh to push are mentioned in The Wealth of Nations. As an example, consider this view (p. 50): “Poverty, though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent, marriage. It seems even to be favourable to generation. A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted after two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury, in the fair sex, while it inflames, perhaps, the passion for enjoyment, seems also to weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of generation.”

… Smith’s magnum opus reminds us to always think about economic and social matters together. Surely the family is the foundation for all economic thought and can’t be ignored.

Comment
Adam Smith was born (1723) and brought up in a Calvinist home by his religious mother, whom he adored. As a sickly child she nursed him from birth until he was 14, when he left home in Kirkcaldy and matriculated at Glasgow University (1737). He left home again in 1740 and went to Balliol College, Oxford for six years. He did not return to Kirkcaldy until 1746 (which was too far in those days to ride to Kirkcaldy and back in his two weeks annual vacations).

This long break coincided with his own philosophical studies (including David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature, 1739-40) and his drift away from the Christianity of his youth. His unpublished Essay on the History of Astronomy (1744-50), published posthumously in 1795, shows his suspicions of all religious beliefs in ‘supercilious superstition’. The last, 6th (1789) edition, of his ‘Theory of Mortal Sentiments’ shows clear evidence of his lost beliefs in Christianity in all its forms, compared to the 1st edition (1759).

In it he made numerous amendments to the religious certainties that he was obliged to state in its earlier editions because of the domination of Scottish social life by the zealots of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in those years. These changes amount to a substantial dilution in only one direction – to repudiate the Christian doctrine of ‘revealed religion’. Neither did they replace these ideas with either Christian Deism or Christian Providence (the latter when mentioned refer directly to pagan ideas, not his own). [See my paper, ‘The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Theology’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, September 2011].

Of course he ‘frequently cited the Bible’. In the 18th century most of his readers were familiar with the Bible and using Biblical references did not signify agreement with ‘revealed religion’, any more than references to Shakespeare infer close familiarity with all of his works. In particular, Abraham dealings with Ephron for ‘four hundred shekels of silver’ illustrates the ancestry of money dealings in ancient commerce (he also quotes from the Bible, interest rates of ‘48%’ in Cyprus).

Be wary of jumping to conclusions when reading 18th-century authors. Smith taught young boys (14-17) at Glasgow University, (1751-64) from which lectures he wrote ‘Moral Sentiments’. All his students came from Christian homes in Scotland, England, and Ireland, and undoubtedly knew their Bibles. If I quote references to the News of the World, it does not follow that I am in agreement with it!

Of course, Smith ‘unashamedly talked of “savage nations”’. His discourse reflected the world he lived in, not the world over 250 years later. I attended University in the 1960s when brave women were defying the racial discrimination in the USA enforcing where they could sit on buses.

The title of this piece is quite insensitive: ‘Too Posh To Push’ and is too close to recent events here in Edinburgh. My daughter last week had to go though a caesarian operation to save her baby (and herself), from otherwise certain death. It had nothing to do with being ‘too proud’ (or ‘too posh’). Fortunately, the baby (3¼ lbs) has survived so far and the mother is recovering. Watch the use of those too cute political headlines. Thank goodness, in the UK we have a Nation Health Service that does not discriminate on lack on ‘poshness’, nor on income – its services are free to users, and paid for from our taxation.

Yes, ‘Smith’s magnum opus reminds us to always think about economic and social matters together’, and we should watch how we address sensitive issues. And yes, ‘the family is the foundation for all economic thought and can’t be ignored’, and I am glad that by my daughter by taking urgent action, I have a new member in it who might not be here otherwise.

Always Remember Context When Citing Adam Smith

Paul Sugar writes in Bad Conscience (HERE)

“I thought I might do a post drawing on some of the finer thinkers of the 18th century. Specifically David Hume, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and the problem of political “enthusiasm”. Or as we would now call it, fanaticism.”

Comment
For David Hume and Adam Smith ‘enthusiasm’ referred to religious fanatical passions, not politics, which in their view was by far a more disruptive danger to social peace than politics. The mass of people was excluded from politics in the 17th-18th centuries, but they had easily enter into religious enthusiasm.

The results of religious enthusiasm were often extreme disruption as seen, for example, in the public behaviour of the zealots in the battles between the Episcopalians and the Church of Scotland at the time (and formerly against Roman Catholics before them), who prevented Hume from academic appointments and intimidated Smith into silence on religious matters until the later months of his life. They had in mind the ‘enthusiastic’ mobs of religious fanatics in parts of Asia and the Middle East, which we see today, and in terrorist incidents in Western cities also, by ‘enthusiastic’ individuals, in Hume and Smith’s meaning of the word.

The Secular Versus The Theological Adam Smith

Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments presents what on closer examination reads as a contradictory assertion of the origin of the ‘general rules of morality’ as read below stating that they are ‘justly regarded as the laws of the Deity”, and thereby conforming to Christian theology, and yet from the previous chapter, Smith asserts emphatically, that the origin of the “general rules” are shown to be found “from experience, that all actions of a certain kind, or circumstanced in a certain manner, are approved or disapproved of.”

To the extent that the earlier chapter is clearly secular and devoid of mention of the Deity, the following chapter conforms to orthodox Calvinist doctrine.

Moral Sentiments abounds with such almost contradictory ideas and explanations, as if (and as I believe was the case from reading them all) Adam Smith addressed two audience: secular philosophical readers and the censorious zealots in the Church of Scotland.

What do you make of Adam Smith’s ambivalence?

Chapter 4:
How he presents the “Origin and Use of general Rules” in Chapter 4:

“Nature, however, has not left this weakness, which is of so much importance, altogether without a remedy; nor has she abandoned us entirely to the delusions of self–love. Our continual observations upon the conduct of others, insensibly lead us to form to ourselves certain general rules concerning what is fit and proper either to be done or to be avoided. Some of their actions shock all our natural sentiments. We hear every body about us express the like detestation against them. This still further confirms, and even exasperates our natural sense of their deformity. It satisfies us that we view them in the proper light, when we see other people view them in the same light. We resolve never to be guilty of the like, nor ever, upon any account, to render ourselves in this manner the objects of universal disapprobation. We thus naturally lay down to ourselves a general rule, that all such actions are to be avoided, as tending to render us odious, contemptible, or punishable, the objects of all those sentiments for which we have the greatest dread and aversion. Other actions, on the contrary, call forth our approbation, and we hear every body around us express the same favourable opinion concerning them. Every body is eager to honour and reward them. They excite all those sentiments for which we have by nature the strongest desire; the love, the gratitude, the admiration of mankind. We become ambitious of performing the like; and thus naturally lay down to ourselves a rule of another kind, that every opportunity of acting in this manner is carefully to be sought after.

It is thus that the general rules of morality are formed. They are ultimately founded upon experience of what, in particular instances, our moral faculties, our natural sense of merit and propriety, approve, or disapprove of. We do not originally approve or condemn particular actions; because, upon examination, they appear to be agreeable or inconsistent with a certain general rule. The general rule, on the contrary, is formed, by finding from experience, that all actions of a certain kind, or circumstanced in a certain manner, are approved or disapproved of. To the man who first saw an inhuman murder, committed from avarice, envy, or unjust resentment, and upon one too that loved and trusted the murderer, who beheld the last agonies of the dying person, who heard him, with his expiring breath, complain more of the perfidy and ingratitude of his false friend, than of the violence which had been done to him, there could be no occasion, in order to conceive how horrible such an action was, that he should reflect, that one of the most sacred rules of conduct was what prohibited the taking away the life of an innocent person, that this was a plain violation of that rule, and consequently a very blamable action. His detestation of this crime, it is evident, would arise instantaneously and antecedent to his having formed to himself any such general rule. The general rule, on the contrary, which he might afterwards form, would be founded upon the detestation which he felt necessarily arise in his own breast, at the thought of this, and every other particular action of the same kind. (TMS III.4.7: 158-59).

““When these general rules, indeed, have been formed, when they are universally acknowledged and established, by the concurring sentiments of mankind, we frequently appeal to them as to the standards of mjudgment,min debating concerning the degree of praise or blame that is due to certain actions of a complicated and dubious nature.” (TMS III.411: 160)

How Adam Smith presents the general rules of morality in Chapter 5:

“Of the influence and authority of the general Rules of Morality, and that they are justly regarded as the Laws of the Deity”

“Since these, therefore, were plainly intended to be the governing principles of human nature, the rules which they prescribe are to be regarded as the commands and laws of the Deity, promulgated by those vicegerents which he has thus set up within us. All general rules are commonly denominated laws: thus the general rules which bodies observe in the communication of motion, are called the laws of motion. But those general rules which our moral faculties observe in approving or condemning whatever sentiment or action is subjected to their examination, may much more justly be denominated such. They have a much greater resemblance to what are properly called laws, those general rules which the sovereign lays down to direct the conduct of his subjects. Like them they are rules to direct the free actions of men: they are prescribed most surely by a lawful superior, and are attended too with the sanction of rewards and punishments. Those vicegerents of God within us, never fail to punish the violation of them, by the torments of inward shame, and self–condemnation; and on the contrary, always reward obedience with tranquility of mind, with contentment, and self–satisfaction.

There are innumerable other considerations which serve to confirm the same conclusion. The happiness of mankind, as well as of all other rational creatures, seems to have been the original purpose intended by the Author of nature, when he brought them into existence. No other end seems worthy of that supreme wisdom and divine benignity which we necessarily ascribe to him; and this opinion, which we are led to by the abstract consideration of his infinite perfections, is still more confirmed by the examination of the works of nature, which seem all intended to promote happiness, and to guard against misery. But by acting according to the dictates of our moral faculties, we necessarily pursue the most effectual means for promoting the happiness of mankind, and may therefore be said, in some sense, to co–operate with the Deity, and to advance as far as in our power the plan of Providence. By acting otherways, on the contrary, we seem to obstruct, in some measure, the scheme which the Author of nature has established for the happiness and perfection of the world, and to declare ourselves, if I may say so, in some measure the enemies of God. Hence we are naturally encouraged to hope for his extraordinary favour and reward in the one case, and to dread his vengeance and punishment in the other.” (TMS III.5.6 - 7: 165-6).

Comment
The ideas from these and many other instances I am compressing into a short chapter in the forthcoming Handbook on Adam Smith (edited by Chris Berry for Oxford University Press, 2012).

I should make it clear I am reporting on Adam Smith’s alleged religiosity from his expressed views on religion over his lifetime and I am not assessing the truth or otherwise of the theological ideas of the Christian religion (or any other religion). Readers are asked to keep this in mind when (if) they communicate with me.

A Constructive Contribution to the Debate on Adam Smith's Alleged Religiosity

[A reader contributes long comments on my Adam Smith’s alleged religiosity Chapter (see below) and, as it is both interesting, constructive, and educational, it is also posted here on the main board as well as in the relevant comments. (Paragraphs added to make it more readable on Blog pages)]:

“I've been ruminating on your post for a few days, which I found a bit disturbing. I've finally decided to set down some of the reasons why I was bothered. My comments have to be divided in 2 parts for Blogger to accept. It's all well and good to engage in polite scholarly discourse, but I think you should do more to underscore what strikes me (and it seems strikes you as well) as ahistorical history being performed by Dr Long.

Scripture was an important everyday component of the vernacular of Western Europe in the 18thC, shared especially in Scotland by all members of even modestly educated groups (or classes, or orders, or what-you-will). And using apt quotes as part of conversational or epistolary "wit", whether from scripture or poetry or a Latin or French tag, was common place for the urbane and learned, among whom Adam Smith certainly was found. A Whig could quote wittily Alexander Pope or a Tory quote the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury without indicating anything about his personal belief system. A person who didn't believe in particular Providence might nonetheless use a familiar phrase about Providence in lieu of Fate or Fortune. And so on...

I'd go further than your pointing to the fact that Smith's mother, with whom he often lived as an adult, raised him in a (moderate) Calvinist household. Smith's formal education and his teaching responsibilities required he be fluent in the philosophical implications of various niceties of competing Protestant doctrines. According to Phillipson's bio (I'm halfway thru and loving it), Smith raced thru the mandatory theology sessions of the course he gave in Moral Philosophy. But it was essential he cover those topics, and in a way that navigated dexterously among the most sensitive doctrinal issues that were producing massive amounts of both intellectual and political controversy in Scotland at the time. That Smith succeeded in avoiding attacks on his teaching suggests the depth and scope of his knowledge of theology as well as his political savvy, but says nothing about what his personal religious beliefs were.

Dr Long has to demonstrate more than comfort and familiarity with religious language if he is to argue that Smith was (probably) a "committed Christian." That sort of comfort and familiarity was shared by many heterodox intellectuals of the 18thC, whether Socinians or Deists or other sorts of "freethinkers", who were frequently rebels against a grim sort of Christianity they'd been force-fed as children or against the often narrow intellectual, social and political bigotry of the religious establishments, especially though not exclusively in Scotland.

Not to engage in too much snark, but while Dr Long was at Cambridge, didn't he take any courses from Skinner, which would have challenged the methodology Long has adopted for reading textual evidence? Or for that matter, did he read any of Skinner's oeuvre on Hobbes and note how subsequent writers (e.g. Locke) performed the delicate dance of drawing on Hobbes while avoiding the taint of being called a Hobbist? Even in the mid-18thC, any hint of skepticism was likely to elicit hysterical accusations of "Hobbist" or "Spinozist", which were still potentially fatal labels to be attached to a polite thinker like Adam Smith. More importantly, does Dr Long suggest Smith took positions in his writings that in any significant way depend on the core doctrines of Christianity (whether Calvinist or other)? Aren't Smith's philosophical priors for his "science of man" more consistent with those of his intellectual companion, David Hume, who was openly skeptical?

I've just finished Paul Russell's The Riddle of Hume's Treatise (which is, btw, a great road-map to the religious controversial literature in England and Scotland during the first half of the 18thC). After Russell's demonstration of a host of irreligious positions Hume developed in the Treatise, I ask myself whether Smith was any more likely than Hume to buy Clarke's physio-theology or Butler's natural religion apologetics for Christianity, to say nothing of Smith's likely rejection of Biblical revelation as "historical" evidence. And doesn't Smith break with Hutcheson's attempts to moderate Calvinist severity pretty much along the same lines as Hume's approach to human nature? Unlike Hume, Smith doesn't openly dismiss religious beliefs. But it seems to me Smith's thought no more depends on a Christian world-view than Hume's does.

Moral obligations are derived neither from the role of God as creator of mankind nor from salvic grace or promises of redemption, and Smith's history of human social development has no clear role for God as an intervening force in directing that history. Smith's moral virtues, adapted for a commercial culture, are derived as much from antiquity as from Christian models. If Smith was a committed Christian, it was a commitment to a Christianity mostly drained of both philosophical and day-to-day significance. Whatever Adam Smith's private religious beliefs, however, we can say with assurance that for both Smith and Hume, "The proper study of Mankind is Man." And it seems to me that any speculation on Smith's religion has to start from there.

Looking forward to your forthcoming chapter!”

A Model Debate on Adam Smith and Religion

There is an interesting example of an exchange between John Lindgren (a retired economics professor from NDSU and President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND. He was also Mayor of Fargo for 16 years) and 'Entech’ – a regular correspondent on Lost Legacy – on the Red River Freethinkers Bog (HERE):

“Economics of Religion 101”

Follow the link to read the excellent exchange about Adam Smith.

On Adam Smith’s Alleged theism

I am working hard on my chapter for the forthcoming Handbook on Adam Smith (Oxford University Press), edited by Chris Berry of Glasgow University.

Among my notes of scholars who take an entirely different view to mine (roughly that Adam Smith deliberately hid his private and critical views on the religion throughout his adult life because of the existing dominance of the church on all aspects and all levels of life in Scotland and England which made its zealous members censorious and at times violent). I have read closely the views of Brendon Long (PhD from Cambridge in Theology), of which examples can be found at:

Long, B. 2009. ‘Adam Smith’s Theism”, editor, Jeffery T. Young, pp 71-99. Elgar Companion to Adam Smith, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

In Table 4.1 ‘References to scripture in the Smithian corpus,’ pp.75-6, is an example of what I am up against:

Brendon locates one of Smith’s Biblical references in a fairly innocuous remark where Smith complains about some printer’s errors in transcribing his careful words from his manuscript o Moral Sentiments (1759). Smith complains to Strahan, his London printer about the:

‘manifold sins and inequities you have been guilty of in printing my book. The first six, at least the first third, and fourth and sixth are what you call sins against the holy Ghost, which cannot upon any count be pardoned. The Remainder are capable of remission in case of repentance, humiliation and contrition.’ (Letter no. 54, 73, to William Strahan, Printer, in London, from Smith in Glasgow, 30 December, 1760; Adam Smith's Correspondence, Oxford, 1980.

Brendon Long claims that Smith’s use of a Biblical phrase is evidence of Smith’s religiosity, concluding that:

“The reference is not a substantive theological point, more of a whimsical comment to Strahan [Smith’s publisher], but it reveals a strong comfortability with the discourse of a committed Christian’. (Jeffery T. Young pp 71-9). [p 75, Table 4.1].

It is always essential in conducting debates critiquing someone’s assertions to check all references, which I did some time ago and made these notes:

The actual Biblical reference is:

Matthew: 12.31:

‘And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven’.

Brendon Long presumes that this shows is evidence of Smith’s Christian commitment by asserting, first, that Smith writes in a mere ‘whimsical’ tone and, second, that after Smith's ‘whimsical’ remark, he “reveals a strong comfortability with the discourse of a committed Christian”.

I suggest that Smith’s actual words can also be interpreted as showing his ‘strong comfortability when conducting a discourse with a committed Christian in a theological manner’ without it implying anything more. Smith was familiar with Calvinist theology (which his mother ensured he knew about, as part of the normal education and preparation of passing examination by the local Presbyterian minister in Kirkcaldy for his acceptance into the Kirk around 10-11 years old).

In fact, throughout his life he remained familiar with the (moderate) Calvinist doctrine and its interpretation of the Bible that his mother expected from him (he is known to have had an excellent retentive memory) and he demonstrated exactly this in Moral Sentiments, his lectures (including those on rhetoric in Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres (1763) , and his Lectures On Jurisprudence (1762), and, most importantly, in his History of Astronomy (1744-c.48), which generations of readers – and modern scholars – have failed to recognise because, like Brendon Long, they read his Works already convinced that Smith was religious or are in denial about his scepticism.

But strip away that presumption and read his Works as a Calvinist zealot searching for heresy might, and you find more than a few signals that Adam Smith hid his scepticism almost too well for the less accomplished men he was up against. He knew his Bible and doctrine better than most and I attempt to show this in my chapter.

I should point out that I had the great pleasure of meeting and debating with Brendon Long in Sydney, Australia in February 2010 on Smith’s alleged religiosity in front of an audience of about 40 people. He is a fine scholar, but we agreed to disagree in the best possible good taste.

Reflective Thoughts on Smith's Essay on the History of Astronomy

I am presently working on the interesting subject of Adam Smith on religion. Some time back, after I had presented my paper, 'The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Religiosity’, in Richmond University in 2009, and engaged in a debate in Sydney Australia in 2010, a friendly (Christian) correspondent remarked that my assertions on the doctrine of atonement betrayed my lack of theological knowledge. My knowledge, such as it was, of Christian atonement was based on a Scottish Presbyterian upbringing – a frightened child told in severe tones of having to account for all my sins, big and small, on the ‘day of judgment’.

Anyway, I asked for some bibliographic references on theology, which I pursued vigorously when received. One such was Alister Mcgrath’s ‘Christian Theology: an introduction (2005, 3rd edition, Blackwell), which is a comprehensive and detailed survey of theology from the early centuries of Christianity through to modern times. In essence, it is a history of the journey from the relatively simple message in the Sermon the Mount through to more complex ideas, such as the Trinity (God the father, Jesus the son, and Holy ghost, the spirit), on to further complications (too many to mention), represented by the ideas of Providence, the Elect, (familiar in Smith’s time), and to the splendours of Liturgy, vestments, religious art, and inevitably to variations of ‘liberation theology’.

I found it all very interesting. It complicates the orthodox picture of Smith’s role in the society he was brought up in. Theology dominated the discourse he had with those around him at the tail-end of several centuries of murderous contests for theological power (and purity), touching all levels of the established societies in Scotland, England, Ireland, and continental Europe.

It was as a young graduate student (1744-48) that Adam Smith began to move way from the shadow of the remaining dogmatic certainties of the time. The main clue of this drift away theologically (in the absence of a reliable literary trail) is available in Smith’s ‘intended juvenile’ History of Astronomy essay (posthumous 1795). Since then, the essay has been read mainly as an essay on the subject of its title alone, with hints at Smith’s youthful early thoughts on natural philosophy. This view does not explain Smith’s extraordinary measures from the physical manuscript when he completed it (c. 1758) to protect the essay from the fate of all of his other unpublished manuscripts which were burned on his direct instructions on his death bed in I790.

It can also be read as a secular challenge to the very core of religious belief (as I attempt to show in my ‘Adam Smith on Religion’, my chapter for a forthcoming ‘Adam Smith Handbook’, Oxford University Press, 2011). I quote from the essay in my book ‘Adam Smith: a moral philosopher and his political economy (1st edition, 2010 Palgrave):

“Hence, the origin of Polytheism, and of that vulgar superstition which ascribes all the irregular events of nature to the favour or displeasure of intelligent, though invisible beings, to gods, demons, witches, genii, fairies” (EPS, 49).

This is normally accepted as a “spirited attack on primitive pagan religion”, or what Smith also called “the lowest and most pusillanimous superstition” EPS, 50). I suggest that it must have occurred to him that not much had changed in respect of the understanding of natural world from within the perspectives of that same “pusillanimous superstition” in the 1700+ years of Christian religion, especially in the bigoted ranks of the zealots.

It is certainly possible to reconstruct in that secular manner in the narrative embedded in Smith’s History of Astronomy essay.

Smoke and Mirrors Protected Adam Smith From Religious Persecution

Regular reader, Dan Hirschman, draws my attention to a paper by Benjamin Friedman, Harvard, ‘Religion the Rise of Economics’, presented to the AEA meting in Denver, recently and reported in The Economist, HERE:

“This “influence on the work of Smith and other early economists stemming from thinking about matters not just moral but religious in the traditional sense”, Mr Friedman argues in the short paper on which his talk was based, “is not generally understood – indeed...(it) contradicts most current-day interpretations of the origins of economics as an independent intellectual discipline".

Mr Friedman is not making a point about Adam Smith’s own religious beliefs or lack thereof, nor making claims about his own religious practices. Rather, he argues that the ideas that mark out a Smithian conception of human behaviour and motivation mirror, in an intriguing way, what were “then controversial changes in religious beliefs in the English-speaking Protestant world”. Recognising these affinities, he reckons, reverses the view:

“[T]hat the emergence of "economics" out of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century was an aspect of the more general movement toward secular modernism in the sense of a historic turn in thinking away from a God-centered universe, toward
what we broadly call humanism.”

Consider Smith’s seminal “invisible hand” idea—that behaviour motivated solely by individuals’ self-interest can, and under appropriate conditions will, lead to outcomes that are beneficial for society as a whole. This was, of course, a radical notion at the time. In the 18th century, people argued about whether people did or did not have the ability to figure out what was or was not in their own self-interest. But even those who believed that they did did not reckon that there was anything inherently broadly beneficial. Indeed, self-interested behaviour was usually described as “vicious”. Yet around the time that Mr Smith was thinking about the foundations of economic behaviour in Edinburgh, Scotland was in the midst of what would come to be regarded as a shift away from orthodox Calvinism (simultaneously, there was a similar debate within the Church of England).

Mr Friedman identifies three central features of this shift in thinking. First, a shift from orthodox Calvinist belief in the “utter depravity” of all individuals to the “inherent goodness” of people. Second, a shift away from a belief in predestination to a belief in human agency (in the religious context, this was primarily about who was eligible to be “saved”). Third, “while Orthodox Calvinists believed that the sole reason man exists is the glorification of God; their opponents believed that human happiness is also a legitimate, divinely intended end”.

Each of these shifts, he argues, is strikingly congruent with the shift from a pre-Smithian conception of the way people behave and the economy functions, to Mr Smith’s vision. Mr Smith might have developed his ideas even if these religious debates had not been taking place, he argues, but the similarities are striking. The paper concludes that:
Critics sometimes complain that belief in free markets…is a form of religion. It turns out that there is something to the idea—not in the way the critics mean, but in a deeper, more historically grounded sense.

Comment
Bnejamin’s Paper on which the Economist Article is based, “ECONOMICS AS A MORAL SCIENCE: RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES ON THE SMITHIAN REVOLUTION AND AFTER, Benjamin M. Friedman Harvard University” can be accessed from the link in the original Economist report, cited above.

[NB: Benjamin’s paper is of a “read only” status.]

Lost Legacy’s interest in Benjamin’s paper is two-fold: our continuing interest in the modern fable of Adam Smith’s meaning of the Invisible-Hand metaphor, and our interest in the fables of “Adam Smith and Religion”, which title is a chapter that I am actively engaged in writing for the forthcoming “Oxford Adam Smith Handbook”, , edited by Chris Berry, Maria Pagannelli, and Craig Smith, Oxford University Press, for September 2011.

I wrote the following to Dan Hirschman of my general impression of Benjamin’s general hypothesis (without citing any particular parts of it):

The case put for religion influencing Smith is quite common (see: A. L. Macfie, 1967, Allen & Unwin, or T. D. Campbell’s, Adam Smith’s Science of Morals, 1971, Allen & Unwin to mention only two authors -there are many more), and I consider the case is quite weak. It tends to ignore the context in which Adam Smith worked, or rather identifies the context from the wrong perspective. Smith was not influenced in what he wrote by religious ideas (he was not a Christian) but he was influenced by the repressive environment that religious fanatics created in Scotland; he wrote, therefore, specifically to disguise his skepticism because of the context of the very real dominance of the religious institutions in Scotland at that time, which precluded academic freedom to be frank about it.

This was much like Soviet institutions dominated Easter European academic work from the late 1940s to c.1989, and influenced how non-communists felt compelled to write their papers without being persuaded of Marxist ideas. Communist regimes were part of much deeper totalitarian repression than the dominant Calvinists in Scotland in the 17th-18th centuries, but as long as philosophers in Scotland did not challenge explicitly revealed religion, and made the occasional genuflection towards the scriptures, they tended to be left alone, as was the case with Adam Smith and others (but not honest David Hume but even he refrained from admitting explicitly to atheism). Three professors (two ministers of the Church, and one a professor of divinity) at Glasgow were harassed for alleged 'heresy' by the local Presbytery before Smith's appointment as Professor of Moral Philosophy . Strikingly, totalitarian Communism lasted for 'only' 70 years, while the iron fist of Calvinism lasted two centuries – and Catholicism for a millennia before that.

Smith was careful to write within such constraints until the last decade of his life (particularly after his very religious mother died in 1784) when his cumulative dilution of his earlier conformist religious statements in his 6th edition of Moral Sentiments showed he had moved considerably to a non-Calvinist stance on Atonement, revealed religion, and the after-life, among a score of other shibboleths.

I am detailing this in a chapter I am writing on 'Religion and Adam Smith' for the pending Oxford Adam Smith Handbook to be published in September 2011. A short 'taster' of my ideas can be read in my ‘The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Theology’ in a forthcoming, Journal of History Of Economic Thought.

That evangelical Christians, including Calvinists, played a large and influential role in the AEA in the later-19th century had nothing to do with Smith's works or ideas.

To allege even that Smith was influenced by religious ideas in any positive sense is to misread the evolution of his need to hide his views in public) in both TMS and WN (he was slightly more candid in private). He did whatever was necessary to avoid public chastisement from the unforgiving zealots and enthusiasts’ of the Church of Scotland - and to protect his very religious mother from embarrassment and hurt - as a careful reading of his changes to new editions of his books from the 3rd to the sixth (TMS) and a proper assessment of his chapter on the role of religion in society would show in Book V of WN.

Adam Smith and Religion

“The Alleged Religiosity of Adam Smith”, a paper I presented at the Summer School for the Preservation of the History of Economics held at the University of Richmond, Virginia, was video-recorded and is on You Tube (HERE).

It is not of high quality, at least on my PC - it's actually quite awful (I only became aware of a tv camera when well into my talk) – but if you persevere you will get an idea of my theme, which I have been working on for a number of years now and which is the subject of my chapter for the Oxford Adam Smith Handbook 2011.

The discussion that followed was challenging, and went on informally afterwards.

You will also catch a glimpse of the excellent facilities at the Summer School for listening live to a number of leading lights (and newer scholars) in the field of the history of economic thought and for discussing with them informally in a productive learning environment.

The June 2011 Summer Institute is at the planning stage and I shall post details on Lost Legacy as I receive them from Sandra Peart and David Levy, the organisers.

The Sad Sight of 'Holier Than Thou'

Mike Lux writes in the Huffington Post (HERE)

'How Do Christians Become Conservative?

‘Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good", there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for number one first.’

Comment
I have nothing to say about the theological implications of Mike Lux’s question that is directed at ‘conservative Christians’ who are better placed to answer him.

(I could ask Mike Lux how anybody became a ‘Christian’ like the zealots of Smith’s time, who ran a Taliban-type of established church and suppressed any signs of dissent to their rule, and were particularly oppressive by any standards towards the poor and disadvantaged who had no means of recourse for their troubles, and even worse to members of denominations of Christianity. They even made it difficult for Adam Smith to speak his mind on their behaviours.)

Adam Smith was not implicated in the obnoxious notions expressed by Lux in the sentence:

‘There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good", there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for number one first.’

His book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) shows quite the opposite moral standards to the ‘Greed is Good’ outlook. His book, Wealth Of Nations (1776) shows no evidence that he believed there was ‘an invisible hand of the market’.

I always consider it a travesty of good sense to believe that those with whom you disagree on politics embody all the worst features of human behaviour and thinking, while your other lot encompass all the virtues. Neither the ‘left’ nor the ‘right’ have a monopoly of what is commendable in what Smith called humanity.

Adam Smith Meets God and Mammon

During my visit to Australia I was invited to participate in a panel debate with Professors Paul Oslington (Theology and Economics) and Brandon Long (Political Advisor and PhD in Theology from Cambridge) on the subject: “Reconciling and God and Mammon: Adam Smith and how religion shaped his ideas”. The debate was chaired by Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich, a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney, a think tank akin to the Adam Smith Institute in London (of which I am a Fellow).

About 40 (CIS confirm the attendance was 70 not 40!) people crowded into the CIS library (itself a poignant place for me to visit as it is the location of the ‘P. P. McGuiness Library’ and ‘Paddy’ was a mentor of mine when I was a teenager in Sydney in the 50s – he got me interested in economics and we shared many a debate on history, politics, and current affairs.

We each had 15 minutes, Paul and Brandon sharing the case for Smith being religious and me taking the opposite tack that his beliefs in Christianity faded from his time at Oxford, particularly after 1744.

Because Paul led on the role of the invisible hand (a case of providence), I responded with it being a ‘mere’ metaphor for what drove ‘rich landlords’ to feed the ‘thousands whom the employed’ – the absolute necessity for them to do so – and what drove some, but not all, merchants to invest locally – their insecurity in face of the higher risks of foreign trade.

Brandon found evidence of Smith’s Christianity in religious- sounding statements in Moral Sentiments and I responded with alternative readings of the same statements.

Audience participation and questioning was of a high standard – clearly the audience were divided – and Dr Hartwich chaired the proceedings most fairly, even inviting short-rebuttal remarks from the panellists.

What, with the CIS event and my paper, ‘The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Theology’, which I presented at the Australian Catholic University the day before, it has been a bit of a ‘theological’ visit so far. Certainly, I have learned quite a bit about different perspectives on Adam Smith, with several readings to follow.

I am also happy with the robustness of my critique of modern inventions about Smith’s use of the metaphor of ‘an invisible hand’ and, perhaps more original, my critique of the alleged theologies of Adam Smith. It is in the intense exchange of competing ideas that we refine our understanding of Smith philosophy and political economy.

Adam Smith on Benevolence

John Milbank is quoted in the Faith and Theology Blog (HERE)

"The point about talking about a culture of trust is not some kind of moralistic wishful thinking; the point about a culture of trust is actually that an entrepreneurial culture needs trust. Even if you believe in the free market, it turns out that the model of individualist utilitarianism that goes all the way back to Adam Smith is actually the wrong model. Itʼs the wrong model for the free market itself because if you have endless checking up on people, if you donʼt have trust, that actually inhibits initiative, risk and creativity. This is why the Italian economist Stefanos Zamagni is saying we need to return to the principles of Italian political economy, not Scottish political economy, because the Italian political economists from the 18th century onwards saw sympathy as part of contract itself, not as standing outside contract.

"In the end Adam Smith subordinates sympathy to self-interest and he says that if your butcherʼs selling you meat heʼs not doing it out of the goodness of his heart. But this is untrue. In fact people do enter into economic relationships at the local level for social reasons, for personal reasons, and Zamagni argues in a really powerful way that the more we have relatively informal contracts between people, the more itʼs based on trust, the less you need the intervention of state law on the one hand, or of inner control by firms on the other hand. So this is a different way of thinking about the free market. The market would actually be freer if it was a moral market....”

Comment
Smith's point in the 'butcher, brewer, baker' example is you cannot rely on benevolence alone to feed you (and everybody else), unless you are a beggar. In practice, you must address the butcher's, and etc.,'s interests not your own.

This is not a disavowal of benevolence - there is not enough of it to go round, so to speak. If everybody relied on benevolence for their daily needs, from whence would the objects of such benevolence come from?

This is clear from Smith's Moral Sentiments too. The divine has everything in his benevolent gift - the entire universe in fact - and still more than is needed by all of mankind. Mankind cannot match that degree of benevolence; its wants are many, its access to the means is limited; nature is niggardly, and so, necessarily, is mankind.

God v Mammon: tonight's debate

Tonight's event is a 'God and Mammon' debate in which we are discussing the theme around Adam Smith's views in 20-minute slots plsu a Q & A session.

I plan to include the so-called 'hand of god' version of the invisible hand, if its raised (I speak second), and/or Smith's writings on bargaining (WN I.ii), which were remarkably clear -'give me that which I want and you shall have that which you want' - also kmown today as the conditional proposition. He supports this approach in TMS too.

Remarkably, most neoclassical 'bargaining' models are completely misconstrued. They are based on conflict and zero-sum coercion (Zeuthen, Hicks, Harsani, &co) in strike threats and 'wafare', which is not how people actually bargain. John Nash dropped trying to model bargaining as a process and opted for modelling bargaining as an outcome.

Smith made exchange a ratio, like value - what we give/what we get. I have done my bit over the past 40 years to encourage exchange-bargaining across business and government agencies.

Well, we'll see how we go.

Into the Lions' Den?

Today in Sydney, I am presenting my paper, "The Hidden Adam Smith in his Allleged Theology" to an audience of academic economists, historians, and theologists at the Australian Catholic University.

I make no presumptions about the response of those listening and asking questions, but I am not anticipating wholesome agreement. So far, the response of colleagues - we are all students - has been mixed, varying from genuine curiousity about aspects of Smith's biography, through to utter disdain for my 'presumptions' that Adam Smith was anything less than a devout Calvinist/Deist/Providentialist/stoic or some mixture of all or several of the foregoing.

When, in private conversation with a distinguished Smithian scholar ealy in 2009, I opined that Smith's public agreement with the Calvinist Confession of Faith was tempered by his knowledge that not to do so would eliminate his candiditure for the professorship at Glasgow (1751), he reacted angrily and declared that 'dishonesty' was uterly beneath Smith and he that would "NEVER" have done "such a disgraceful thing", all said with the definite certainty that what I had suggested was at all but impossible, and therefore it was not open to discussion. Polietness and my usual deference in such company led me to desist from pursing the matter.

This afternoon, I shall probably meet similar responses, perhaps, though deference is not a quality I normally associate with Australian academics (no disrespect, but I spent my teens here).

On which topic I shall report later.

UPDATE:

Well, the bit I knew about went down reasonably well, judging by the question-exchanges, but, Oh Dear, I was quietly informed by a participant that I made a crass error on a theological issue: the doctrine of 'atonement', exposing a very weak flank to my credibility among theologians.

Some reading required, urgently! Chastened, I resort to my long-standing belief that we learn from our errors, not from being right. Doesn't help my embarrassment though...

The Australian Catholic University has a lovely campus and the weather remains beautiful. Is it still snowing in Edinburgh?

Tomorrow to a think-tank on reconciling God and Mammon- note to self: don't mention attonment doctrine.

Paper on Adam Smith's Alleged Religious Beliefs

My paper on the alleged religiosity of Adam Smith – admittedly, those who assert that he was religious in some way, are in a majority at present – is now available from the Social Science Research Network:

Kennedy, Gavin, The Hidden Adam Smith in His Alleged Theology (December 16, 2009).

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1524409

I have received some very helpful comments on it from readers and from two anonymous referees, and one of my next tasks is to complete the revision of the paper – shortening it for example – but also re-casting some of my statements to take account of reader’s comments and my re-thinking since I presented it at the History of Economic Thought Annual Conference meeting at the University of Colorado, Denver in June 2009.

[In Australia on 10 February (13:00-15:00), I am to present the paper to an academic audience at the Australian Catholic University, School of Arts and Sciences Research Seminar Series 2010, Sydney, and on 11 February I am participating on an early evening panel to discuss, “Reconciling God and mammon: Adam Smith and How Religion Shaped his Ideas”.]

Adam Smith as Theologian

Michael Kruse sent a comment to Lost Legacy but it has 'disappeared', once again. He referred to the publication by Routledge of papers from the conference sponsored by the Templeton Foundation on "Adam Smith as Theologian", which are edited by Paul Oslongton.

The upshot is that Michael looks forward to my review of the papers. As is, I intend to do that, having read some of the papers from the conference, and corresponded with the authors.

At present I am editing my own paper (not part of the conference!), The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Theology, in response to anonymous referees with a view to it being published in a journal (details later if and when it is accepted).

I am also presenting this paper to a seminar chaired by Paul Oslington at the Catholic University of Australia on 10th February in Sydney at 1 - 2.30.

I should make clear that Paul does not agree with my hypothesis. That, of course, is how knowledge improves.

Adam Smith as Theologian?

James Otteson, joint professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University in New York, posts on his blog HERE news of a new book from Routledge, under the title: Adam Smith as Theologian, which is edited by Paul Oslington, professor in economics and theology at the Australian Catholic University, Sydney

Worth a Look: "Adam Smith as Theologian"

"Routledge is bringing out a fascinating collection of articles (disclosure: one of them is mine) on the theological underpinnings of Adam Smith's work. Entitled Adam Smith as Theologian, it is edited by Paul Oslington, who is joint chair in economics and theology at Australian Catholic University. The essays were written for an enormously stimulating conference sponsored by the Templeton Foundation that was held in January of 2009 at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

James Otteson writes; “One might be surprised to hear that Smith even had a theology, let alone that a series of penetrating essays could be written on the subject. (Perhaps only a conference on "David Hume as Theologian" could be more surprising!)” I concur with James’ last statement teasing about David Hume.

Last January I was invited to attend a session of the conference – dinner actually, and very nice it was too – and gave a 15-minute talk on "Adam Smith in Edinburgh" to the conference diners in the side-room of a lovely restaurant.

Earlier that day I had accompanied Paul Oslington – a young academic of impeccable manners – in a short tour of Edinburgh’s High Street/Royal mile between the castle and the Holyrood palace. We started at the new Adam Smith statue, just beyond the Mercat Cross and opposite what is now Edinburgh City Chambers (a splendid local government building, where Adam Smith worked from 1778-90 as a Scottish Commissioner of Customs and the Salt Duty) and walked down towards the palace, past John Knox’s house (a formidable firebrand protestant preacher), to Smith’s grave in the Canongate Churchyard), looking a lot better since it was tidied up from a donation from Canada.

Unfortunately, I did not have the keys then to Panmure House,* where Smith lived with his mother, his cousin Janet and his nephew and heir. We walked round it instead.

I look forward to reading the conference papers. Clearly, the contributors take a different stance on the subject of Smith’s Theology – the title is as provocative as you can get (in the nicest possible way, of course). Next month, 11 February, to be confirmed, I am to attend a seminar at the Australian Catholic University, Sydney, at the invitation of Paul Oslington, to which I look forward, where no doubt we shall discuss themes around Smith’s alleged theology.

For those interested, my paper, written before (but NOT for!) the Edinburgh Templeton Foundation conference, “The Hidden Adam Smith in his Alleged Theology” is available on request from me (gavin aT negweb. DoT com).

For those curious about Paul Oslington’s edited volume, here is the list of papers in it:

Smith in Context 1. The Influence of Religious Thinking on the Smithian Revolution Benjamin Friedman 2. Smith and Natural Law John Haldane 3. Smith and Augustine Eric Gregory 4. Christian Freedom in Political Economy: The Legacy of John Calvin in Adam Smith Joe Blosser 5.Providence and Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand Paul Oslington Part II: Analysis and Assessment of Adam Smith’s Theology 6. Economics as Theology: Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations Anthony Waterman 7. Adam Smith, Natural Theology, and the Natural Sciences Peter Harrison 8. God and Smith’s Impartial Spectator James Otteson 9. Adam Smith’s Theodicy Brendan Long 10. A Divine Economy? Assessing Adam Smith’s Theology Adrian Pabst 11. Man and Society in Adam Smith’s Natural Morality: The Impartial Spectator, the Man of System, and the Invisible Hand Ross B. Emmett Part III: Contemporary Reflections 12. The Contemporary Relevance of Adam Smith Arjo Klamer 13. The Moral Basis of Capitalism: Reflections on Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments Paul S. Williams.

It’s available in 2010 (the publishers say on 1 November: ISBN 978-0-415-88071-8)

[*] Panmure House is now owned by Edinburgh Business School (my former day job) and History of Economics Society members visiting Edinburgh who contact me may get access, assuming I am available, and reconstruction work permits.