I would prefer Haskell with a Lisp syntax. Haskell's syntax adds a lot of accidental complexity to the language. My #1 complaint is how infix operators can be imported and assigned precedence/associativity. It is nearly impossible for a human to parse unfamiliar code, let alone understand it. And the sheer size and complexity of the grammar also rears its head when doing non-trivial metaprogramming.
We create these problems for ourselves when we write languages with complicated grammars. And for what? So people don't have to learn how to read Lisp code? A lot of the gain of Haskell is that the super strong type system constrains the form of programs, making it easier to reason about them. Well, constraining the syntax has similar benefits. One being that now my editor can more effectively "reason" about the surface syntax of a program. See Paredit, which enables functionality that isn't possible unless you can easily find the extent of an expression.
Lisp has a lot of syntax complexity that lies hidden under the covers. Sure, symbolic expressions appear regular and uniform but macros are often radically different from functions in syntax, despite looking otherwise identical in application. A big offender in this regard is the loop macro.
We create these problems for ourselves when we write languages with complicated grammars. And for what? So people don't have to learn how to read Lisp code? A lot of the gain of Haskell is that the super strong type system constrains the form of programs, making it easier to reason about them. Well, constraining the syntax has similar benefits. One being that now my editor can more effectively "reason" about the surface syntax of a program. See Paredit, which enables functionality that isn't possible unless you can easily find the extent of an expression.