Marker In The Sand
Is Religion Really to blame for centuries of war? Or would we be fighting each other anyway?
I recently came upon an article titled "Theism Versus Atheism" on Relijournal. At first glance it seemed to be another just summary of theist vs. atheism arguments. But the author had some interesting points about crusades and the religion-causes-war debate.
Argument: Religion is bad since it causes wars
The author points out how humans are tribal by nature. If we weren’t categorized by religion, we’d be categorized in different ways. Either way, mankind would probably still fight amongst each other.
The crusades, Jihad, the Gaza strip, the thirty years war… At a glance there seems to be a hell of a lot of evidence to support the idea that religion makes people pick up stick and beat each other to death. Or does it?
There are many ways people classify people. Race, Religion, Nationality, Wealth, Class, the list is endless, and each one is a valid way of categorizing people.
He goes on to say:
…the whole point of expansion is to acquire more resources for your tribe/clan/country. Humans are, by our nature, tribal animals. And so therefore we attack other tribes to ensure the survival of our own.
It’s easy to blame religion for crusades and other wars. If religion is removed from the planet, we’d still fight each other over differences in nationality or social status (to name two). Religion might sometimes be scapegoated this way.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe religion to be a catalyst in matters such as war. It is also to blame for certain acts of terrorism. Unfortunately religious belief is something humans are often very devout about.
But if we didn’t have religious belief, would we have something else that we would be just as passionate about?
It is a complicated topic and whose surface has not even been scratched by this article.
Does religion kill people, or do people kill people?
Over to you, kind reader. What’s your take on the subject?
Special thanks to Pearl Jam who inspired the title for this post.
It’s a valid point. However, I think that in some cases religion is a central or an essential part of the warring and violence. In other cases, religion might strengthen or solidify the divisions. So when it comes to people fighting over their differences, religious differences certainly do not seem to help. Faith, for example, in an eternal and blissful afterlife in reward for slaying infidels is a dangerous proposition.
Written by James on July 11th, 2008I feel that religion is a special case of the “go team” mentality. Everyone wants their team to win, but if it doesn’t, they just accept defeat in one way or another. They don’t continue to plough resources and lives into the cause because an Almighty Team Principal in the Sky decrees their cause to be Right and Just. That’s where religion scores over other motivators of mayhem - it’s not just what *we* want, brothers, it’s what *He* wants.
Written by Andy Kimber on July 14th, 2008I think religion functions in many ways in wars (which would I think continue apace even without religion – neither schoolyard fights nor lobsters dismembering each other have much to do with doctrinal differences most likely – belligerence is not dependent upon religion).
But yes, we have religion as catalyst, religion as scapegoat, we also, I think rather insidiously, religion as justification and religion as appeasement. When we look to scripture or practice to justify our violence – be it to prop institutions like slavery or Apartheid or to underwrite a practice of killing adulterous women or gay men – we are using religion to fuel a fire that is already underway. We ignore what in scripture we don’t have a problem with, but we take our highlighters out and get busy when it comes to things we’re hot and bothered about.
We also use religion to close down calls for peace and justice. A war like the current one on terror is not ostensibly about the righteousness of Christianity, yet it is supported and perpetuated by appealing to not just the cultural differences arising from religious differences – but also by suggesting that what the US is doing is somehow liberating the oppressed. That by killing thousands upon thousands we are being merciful and compassionate neighbors, implying that this is yet another war Jesus is smiling on and that one can be a good Christian and still bomb children.
Predictably I have more to say, but should probably address some of it over on the linked page, since it speaks more directly to some of what he presented there. Thanks for giving us yet another thought-provoking topic to chew on!
Written by fluorophore on July 14th, 2008@fluorophore - I agree that religion can be both a motive and catalyst. But I think the most dangerous is using religion to JUSTIFY a war.
Maybe religion is more dangerous than nationality because it is a personal choice.
@Andy - It’s a scary point you bring up. Two sides are both fighting in the name of God, who is nowhere to be found.
@ James - Yes, it’s truly frightening how many religions reward killing in the name of God. Though this kind of terrorism probably gives a bad name to other, more peaceful and rational religions.
Written by Ted Goas on July 14th, 2008Very interesting post.
In my opinion and in social science terms, religion is the ideology that supports war.
There’s always some material reason for war, religion just provides “reasons” to justify what people are doing, giving a moral basis strong enough to override most people’s natural unwillingness to kill people or put themselves at risk of being killed.
Even the Crusades themselves were about struggles for lots of things in the real world - land, wealth, power.
Written by heather on August 19th, 2008I can point to at least four ways religion factors in:
1. When belligerents in a tribe want to go and smite the other folks across the valley for one reason or another, they have to run this by the priests, who hold a lot of cards in the tribal discussions. Since priests like more people in the tribe and since smiting other tribes can increase his crowd, they look for theological backing. No good priest that starts with an agenda fails to find substantiation in his miserable holy book or related religious texts. The bias is therefore — go get the (word banned in polite discussion).
2. Organized religions hold very regular meetings. These meetings are an opportunity to drive the war cry home or to say organize a demonstration if the priests so desire. You just need to look at the mobs that come pouring out of Friday prayers in countries like Pakistan, all full of incited hatred and given permission to riot.
3. Holy texts are full of examples of genocide and mayhem. They justify war.
4. Religious indoctrination of vulnerable children includes not only religion, but the long laundry list of tribal hatred and animosity against “those” folks. This is how disputes rage for generations instead of getting settled.
5. Ok, I did say four, but I just thought of another reason. In harsh living environments where land and water resources are scarce (does the Middle East pop into your mind?) there is a dog eat dog mentality. Tribal loyalties and religion are first and foremost. Raw survival places a high value on vindictiveness and deceit. You do not see generational strife in places with abundant food and water, for example Polynesia. Why fight over coconuts when they are free for the taking? Spear all the fish you can eat in the lagoon. Kick back, relax.
Religion Poisons Everything —
On facebook, End Hereditary Religion:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10129512247
Written by Richard Collins on August 21st, 2008what is more intellectually dishonest than asserting an answer to a question about how we ‘would’ behave in an universe entirely like this one? if there were no religion, i for one would be nine feet tall, green, and have a pony.
Written by misanthropope on August 28th, 2008This is for Ted….who I assume is the owner of this site (along with his wife). I have read a few of the blogs on here and I did read the “Who Are We and Why We Are Doing This” letter. However, I am still a little confused as to what is trying to be accomplished here. I understand what being a skeptic means and it makes sense to me, but are you and your wife actually looking for answers or is this just debating for the sake of debating? I ask this with all sincerity…I know sometimes “tone” can be misconstrued when typing, but I am not trying to be a smart aleck. I can’t remember without going back, but I know in one of your blogs you mentioned you were a Christian but I can’t remember if you said you weren’t anymore or not, but anyway, because of your Christian background, you will understand when I ask, what is the “Purpose” of all this going back and forth?
Written by Travis on December 3rd, 2008Ooops….I said I read the “Who Are We And Why Are Why We Doing This” letter but then said I wasn’t sure if you were still a Christian or not. However you do state “in a round about way - because you didn’t actually say it, but you answered the question for others in a way that led me to believe - you don’t believe in God. So anyway, just to show I did read that. However, I’m a little more confused, because that doesn’t really line up with being a skeptic. When someone says that they don’t believe in God, to me that indicates the door is shut, locked up and moving on. But it seems this site is all about reopening that door again and again and again. So, I guess along with the “Purpose” question….what do you actually believe - about God - not bigfoot or UFO’s or all that other stuff.
Written by Travis on December 3rd, 2008Hi Travis, let me start out by saying that our blog is currently on hiatus. We haven’t been giving the site the attention it deserves. That said I’ll try to explain my personal approach to the God question as a skeptic. Do I believe that God exists? No. Do I believe that God does not exist? No. I admit I don’t know the answer but presently don’t believe anyone else does either. Technically this makes me an agnostic. Everyone is an agnostic under this approach.
Why might I come off as an atheist? Currently I believe atheists have a more convincing argument than theistic believers. Might that change? Sure. Do I know either side to be right or wrong? Of course not. The door is certainly not shut on either front and I certainly don’t want to surround myself with like-minded people. I think that’s a big reason we started this blog: to continually learn about varying viewpoints and write. Our viewpoints may change.
If we gave our blog more attention, I’m sure we could better clarify this throughout our pages.
Thanks for reading our site and your constructive comments!
Cheers!
Written by Ted on December 3rd, 2008Fair enough….at least the door isn’t closed. I am a Christian and I have seen quite a few kooky Christians as I’m sure most people have…unfortunately they tend to be the ones on TV garnishing way too much limelight. I also personally know many Christians that completely insulate themselves from the World. (I hate to say it, but I think that it’s probably A LOT of professed Christians that do that). It’s out of fear and because of that fear, we find so many Christians hiding behind the Church walls lobbing stones over at whatever new crisis is set to take over the world. This so called Christian attitude has certainly had a negative impact on those inside and outside the Church. It’s too bad really, because they (the Christians) miss the whole point of Bible….Grace, Mercy and Love….God has it….and demonstrated it through Christ. Anyway, that’s my two cents and I truly do hope you find what you are looking for…..the peace that is found in God, through Christ isn’t just a myth, but it is one that not even all “Christians” find…..ok that’s three cents.
Written by Travis on December 3rd, 2008“Religion” often ends up with a lot of dead people. In this case, the number of dead may be unsurpassed:
Written by Alan Clarke on January 10th, 2009For above post tags didn’t work. Click: Stalin Worship to see the basis for one of history’s most infamous idols. And the “worship” was religious indeed. The “state” met the needs of every individual.
Written by Alan Clarke on January 10th, 2009To omit Robespierre and his CULT OF THE SUPREME BEING would be a great disservice. In comparing Stalin, Robespierre, and Jesus, there is something of great importance. Unlike his counterparts, Jesus is sustained as a “hero” of virtue and wisdom. He is quoted more than any other person in history. His teachings are embraced to this day as a foundation for truth and morality. “Turn the other cheek”, “Do unto other’s as you would have them…”. Abraham Lincoln quoted him, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. The test of a person’s character and influence is often not realized until many years have passed. Jesus stands alone in this respect since he went “beyond” good teachings. He made promises that no mortal could keep:
John 14:18-19 “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.”
How could a person who lived 2000 years ago have any “living” influence today? Some people have actually decided to take him at his word as if he were “living”. The results of their decision to trust him have led those people to believe he must not be dead. I know for myself that he is alive. Notice I say, “myself”. He is a personal God that reveals himself to those who trust him. This is not unlike a marriage in which a wife reveals more of herself to a “loving” husband than to an abusing husband. Why are there so many skeptics? There are an equal number of skeptics as there are those of failed marriages. Where do you want to be?
Written by Alan Clarke on January 10th, 2009Alan, thanks for the comments. It is quite impressive and undeniable to see how an icon like Jesus has stood the test of time and influences so many people worldwide.
I’m a little confused by your closing statements. Are you saying that denying a Christian God is comparable to a failed marriage? I don’t understand one can tell that number of Christian skeptics and failed marriages are the same?
I suppose if I had to answer you last question, I don’t know where I want to be. But ‘my location’ doesn’t have to be permanent; I prefer it to be a journey rather than a destination. No matter what side of the fence I’m on at the moment I’d like to consider as much as I can. This is a big reason why I like being on this site and conversing with both believers and non-believers.
Thanks again for the comment. Cheers!
Written by Ted Goas on January 11th, 2009There is a similarity in a relationship with Christ and a marriage between a man and a woman. There are numerous places where the church is referred to as Christ’s “bride”. Paul speaks of it here:
Ephesians 5:30-32
“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”
One can fail in a relationship with an earthly spouse quite similar to how one can fail in a relationship with Christ. All of the root problems are the same: failure to spend sufficient time with your love, fall in love with someone else, no kind words or appreciation for the other, etc. The analogy becomes very poignant for cases where a person once knew Christ, then fell away. A man must have certain mechanisms in place to deal with a troubled marriage, just as he would in a troubled relationship with Christ. Both mechanisms are similar: discipline, maturity, knowledge, wisdom, etc. Obviously there is not an exact 1:1 ratio for both types of failures or successes, but I believe there is a “general” proportionality just as there is between earned income and education.
There is nothing wrong with being a “skeptic”, but being “only” a skeptic without progressing to a belief has a limit to its value. If you are in a sinking boat, you must lay hold of some belief whether it be to keep the ship afloat or to begin swimming. In this example, pure skepticism toward all beliefs will avail little in enhancing one’s life. The great skeptic, Michael Shermer, who publishes “Skeptic” magazine, has progressed far beyond “skepticism”. He whole-heartedly embraces evolutionism, uniformitarianism, and atheism. So why does he call himself a “skeptic”? He is a strong “believer”. The question is, “What does one believe in?” A godless universe of eternal matter and/or energy ordered by chance, or an ordered universe made by God. The first choice hardly seems scientific since matter and energy alone have no inherent “intelligence”. If one is experiencing a broken relationship with God, suffering from extreme egotism, or simply deluded, then I’m sure he’ll be able to construct a system of “science” to explain everything without the inconvenience of a “God”. But the outcome is always the same. Every law of nature is violated, both spiritual laws and physical laws.
Written by Alan Clarke on January 12th, 2009Hi Alan, I’m sure Shermer’s official statement will claim he’s not entrenched in a single stance, though I’ll readily admit it sometimes seems like he’s made up his mind when it comes to God and religion.
But to be fair, Shermer CURRENTLY embraces evolutionism, uniformitarianism, and atheism. That can change. Skepticism is an approach, not a stance. A good skeptic will continually revisit concepts like this and reanalyze their own stance.
Written by Ted Goas on January 12th, 2009Ted quote: “Skepticism is an approach, not a stance. A good skeptic will continually revisit concepts…”
As applied to the sinking boat analogy, a good skeptic may not have the opportunity to revisit anything. Decisions have consequences.
Written by Alan Clarke on January 12th, 2009Right, a sinking boat might not give someone more than one chance to make a decision. I guess I was referring to evolutionism, uniformitarianism, and atheism. We can revisit those many times.
Written by Ted Goas on January 12th, 2009Also, “skepticism” is not what one can pass to their offspring as a legacy. Legacies are built upon what one believes, not what one does not believe. I could write a book entitled, “1001 Ways to Fail at Business”. Can my book become the foundation for Wall Street? Will it sell? Barak Obama was elected by those whose beliefs coincided with his beliefs, or by people who had no belief and were persuaded to believe as he does. There are a *few* who voted against him by selecting the opposite candidate, justifying their decision as a “lesser of two evils”. A country cannot last for long if this is the modus operandi for each successive election. In the same way, a person intending to build a “science” or adherence to a religious belief system cannot straddle a fence indefinitely. If one were to revisit a “fence straddle” after 10-20 years and discover he is still perched in the same precarious position, one might think that person has a serious deficiency. Consider three types of women. Two types have made a “decision”. The third remains undecided or “skeptical”:
1) Celibate (Mother Theresa, Condoleezza Rice, etc.)
2) Married with children (Susanna Wesley, Sara Palin, etc.)
3) Old Maid
Skeptical “old maids” don’t really leave a legacy as do the other two. They are generally pitied.
Written by Alan Clarke on January 12th, 2009Ted quote: “… a sinking boat might not give someone more than one chance to make a decision. I guess I was referring to evolutionism, uniformitarianism, and atheism. We can revisit those many times.”
One is afforded a limited amount of time in a sinking boat. By the same token, there is a limited amount of time afforded to each individual in this life. Much can be learned by observing those who wish they had more time or had chosen differently. And of course we observe daily those who are taken by “surprise”.
Written by Alan Clarke on January 12th, 2009Legacy? I fear we’ve gotten way off topic again. Perhaps this is a topic for another time.
You’re correct in saying a lifetime and sinking boat are both limited periods of time. When I left my comment I assumed a boat takes a few minutes, or even hours, to sink. Thus it garners a bit more urgency than a 60 year lifetime running out. But yes, I agree with your closing comments.
Written by Ted Goas on January 12th, 2009Ted quote: “Thus it garners a bit more urgency than a 60 year lifetime running out.”
Ted, you have so many assumptions built into your thinking that it scares me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think ANYONE is guaranteed a certain amount of time. Where on earth are you getting 60 years? For a 30-year-old person, 60 years may not be afforded. The original topic, “Does Religion Kill People”, makes one think that there could be even less time in lieu of the current state of affairs in Israel and the U.S. government leadership transition. Click here to find out how much time we are guaranteed.
Written by Alan Clarke on January 12th, 2009I’d just like to say thanks you both for linking to my article. It’s refreshing to see atheists who do not have the ‘RAAGH HATE’ mentality I’ve seen in so many who share your mindset. I have various other articles and skits that you might find interesting on various websites around the internet. Here are a couple you may like:
http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/Nukes-Are-Good.633011
http://www.socyberty.com/Issues/Drugs-Yay-or-Nay.570961
Thanks again, and keep questioning everything
Written by Evis T on April 7th, 2009I don’t believe religion is the cause of all (or even most) wars, but I do believe it can lengthen them by making certain reasons for the wars beyond criticism.
Written by ckitching on April 12th, 2009