This seems pretty straightforward yet it has nonetheless been met by opposition. An English scholar by the name of Richard Tawney contests the causal relationship between religion and economics. He points to empirical evidence revealing a Protestant repudiation of Capitalism over the course of history.
Which side do you agree with? Firstly, does religion shape society or society shape religion? Secondly, is the protestant ethic responsible for capitalism or are other, more important variables at play?From a purely logical point of view, empirical evidence appears not to support this proposition. Look at Japan, China, Thailand, South Korea, India--all robust capitalist societies with negligible Christian, let alone Protestant, population. Even our very own Philippines can stand as a stark example of a wheeler-dealer (more like a
tingi than big-time capitalist) free enterprise society that seeks more spiritual guidance from the pope than Protestant ministers.
The relationship seems to be more obvious between the political and the economic system. China, although still nominally communist, has considerably relaxed its political control to sustain the vibrancy of its capitalistic economy.
I would venture to say that the prevalent spiritual and religious thoughts in a society influence its political system, which in turn influence the economic system.
Protestantism, which has myriad denominations and diverse worship forms, is consistent with pluralistic societies that is the base of democracy. But other religious thoughts that teach tolerance and peaceful coexistence like Buddhism and Shintoism are just as compatible with democracy--hence Thailand, Japan and South Korea.
Therefore, it seems clear that Protestantism is not a necessary and sufficient condition for the emergence of a capitalism.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=14620.0