It probably wouldn't really met the requirements of a religion, but it depends on what you mean by both of those terms. If you mean economics as in the study of the means of production, distribution of goods, and the consumption of goods, then I'd say no. It lacks certain distinctions of religion like a spiritual leader, super natural powers, but not necessarily set doctrines. Although, socialists of different stripes, like social anarchists, for example, are "believers" perse in the economics of how production shall be maintained, distributed, and the consumption of said goods.Are some people zealots when it comes to economics? I'd say yes and it may come off like a religious devotion to it, but I wouldn't say economics itself is a religion.Again, it really depends, at least to me, on how you're defining economics and religion. You and I and others may have different points of view on your question.
human: "I think opposing pretty much anything requires some sort of belief in the said thing they're opposing, or else it wouldn't make much sense as to why they oppose it, at least to me it doesn't"
i reject the monetary system and the legal system, not because i have some belief in them, but because they surround me, and i feel the painful effects of those systems in my life and the lives of others i know.
when i relate to people, animals, or the earth without law and money involved, i feel much more creative, joyful, playful...and when i relate through the systems of money and law, i feel more fearful, adversarial, constrained, etc.
my opposition to those systems comes from my experiences living among them, not because i have some "belief" in them.
thinking about it a little more....i'd say that rather than "opposing" the state, capital, etc., i feel the urge, the desire, to relate differently in my life than those systems allow, and i try to follow those feelings as i live. one could certainly describe that as opposition, and that in itself creates a binary...you either believe in something, or you oppose it. but i view my desire for anarchy as impulses. a bird doesn't "oppose" laws or capitalism...although it lives without perpetuating those concepts. my constant exposure to those concepts of domination and control doesn't automatically mean i "believe" in them just because i don't want to live by them.
i don't describe any of my life or thoughts as "beliefs" these days...so perhaps that has a lot to do with the comparisons of belief and opposition not resonating with me.
i like the question....hope to get around to an answer...
I only consider economics to be a religion in the eyes of people whose profession revolves around "the market". "The market" is their god, and economic theory (like supply and demand) is tenets, laws, dogmas, ect. There was this book I read a while back recommended to me by a sociologist friend by a sociologist called "Liquidated" and one of the points of the book was that the people who were selling the financial instruments that led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis also believed that they were good things to sell to people, that they were not these clever manipulators who simply fooled everyone but were just as fooled by their own rhetoric. Finance is ultimately an un-productive field, and this is why a religious belief in it is necessary to continue perpetuating it.
For everyone else, "the economy" doesn't really exist except by as election time talking point, so I guess "the economy" is like a seasonal religious ritual in which all the politicians ask people to make sacrifices to. People lose their jobs and livelihoods to the mysterious entity of "the economy", so in another way it's like Pascal's threat, something that hangs over the heads of people so that they continue voting and obeying.
"i reject the monetary system and the legal system, not because i have some belief in them, but because they surround me, and i feel the painful effects of those systems in my life and the lives of others i know."It would seem to me that the distinction between those systems and the gods/religious tenants, is that the systems themselves very much exist, but the shibboleths that they perpetuate as a precursor for their existence (what "justice" is to the legal system, what "the economy" is to the financial system) do not upon examination. The laws that the legal system is based on very much do not exist but the people who are part of the legal system pretend that they do, and they can use them whenever they see fit, or don't see fit. There are many laws that are still in the books that the courts don't charge people on due to their antiquated nature (like in georgia it's illegal to have sex with the lights on I think), but if the people in the legal system want to lock someone in jail they will use whatever they can find in the books.
edit: I originally said "if the state really wants to lock someone in jail..." but then I realized that the state doesn't actually exist either except some vague concept/entity, so I changed it, lol
i gotta say, you talk a good game when you're in your element. :-)
i upvoted this answer as many times as i downvoted it, so you almost ended up with a net zero. but these stuck out:
"In its larger form it is a fundemental belief in the theoretical possibility of modelisation of behavior and its consequences. Considering there is no real reason to believe this, it feels a lot like a religion."
" there is a "religious" faith in the potential usefulness of mathematical modelisation of behavior"
although you apparently still believe in this religion, at least you do see it as such. so ultimately, you got my upvote.