argues that, since spiritual rewards associated with religion are inherently
risky, rational choice is the only and inherent reaction:
Let us now consider how humans behave when confronted with risk and
choice. The initial proposition is fundamental to the whole of social science.
Individuals choose their actions rationally, including those actions which
concern compensators.
Rational choice involves weighing the anticipated costs and benefits of
actions and then seeking to act so as to maximize net benefits. (Stark 1997:169)In this case, Stark is discussing how people responded to the many calami-
ties that plagued Roman civilization in the final 200 or so years before its
‘fall’ in 476 CE. Stark seeks to explain the Christianization of the Roman world
during this period. For Stark, there is no need to justify rational-choice, because
in his view, consistent with the history of the concept, it is the only factor of
human behavior. Thus, the answer to any question is rational-choice; one
need only show how the facts fit the predetermined explanation.
Stark argues that Christianity became the dominant religion of the empire
because it offered the highest benefit, yet also with relatively high cost in the
form of personal sacrifice. In the view of rational-choice theory, this was not
a problem because collective action such as religion always must contend with
the so-called free-rider problem, which Michael Hechter claims arises when
people rationally realize that, “without participating, they can still reap the
benefits of other people’s activity in obtaining them. If every member of the
group can share in the benefits, then the rational thing to do is to free-ride
rather than to help attain the corporate interest” (Hechter 1987:27). Thus, the
high cost of Christianity minimized the free-rider problem, such that early
Christianity attracted only truly dedicated members, who in turn functioned
more efficiently for the collective interests and who therefore raised the level
of benefits for the members. This enabled Christianity to triumph over pagan-
ism, which could not muster the same degree of collective dedication or effec-
tive action to confront ongoing crisis because it suffered from rampant free-riders.
The Fallacy of Cost-Benefit Explanations in Stark’s Rise of Christianity
An elegantly simple theory, to be sure. It assumes a cost-benefit foundation,
which then only needs to control free-rider contamination. Stark assumes
strong membership criteria of self-sacrifice that greatly inhibited free-riders.
Second, he assumes high-costs coincided with high-benefits, and in times of
230 • George Lundskow