Religion, war and violence

[Mellow Man]

Religious people like to claim that their religion is the one that is going to bring peace to the world, or that their religion in one of many peace-bringing religions out there. They say that followers of their religion, believers in their god(s), donators to their church will be infused with a sense of peace and tranquility and will not want to do harm unto men. Yet in the real world, the history of religious dogma has been the story of constant warfare and strife. Even now we see horrible monstrocities committed in the name of religion all over the globe. What gives?

Consider the case of the Māori people and the Moriori people of New Zealand. The Māoris lived on mainland New Zealand, and the Moriori a few hundred miles to the east on the Chatham Islands. The Māori had been a warlike people, while the Moriori had a tradition of resolving their conflicts with peace and consensus building. When the Māoris heard about the islands the Moriori were living on, they sent a few hundred soldiers over to invade. The Moriori tried to issue a peace offering, but before they could their villages were being burned, their citizenry raped and slaughtered. The Māori people survive today. The Moriori do not.

The same kind of clash has undoubtedly occurred in the past between people of warlike religions and people of peacelike religions. The outcomes of those conflicts are going to be heavily in the favor of the warlike groups, so we should expect to see warlike religions surviving today. No surprise, then, that's exactly what we see. It's a kind of Darwinian natural selection. So that's one reason we see people fighting for religion: if peaceful religions had superior survival rates, warlike religions would have died out long ago. Granted, there are some seemingly peaceful religions whose members do not spread their beliefs by violence, the main ones being Buddhism and Taoism. (Incidentally these two religions also do not posit the existence of deities. Hmm...) So the process of natural selection didn't completely kill off all peaceful religions, but remember that there are far more Christians and Muslims than Buddhists or Taoists. In any case, the comments here do not apply to Buddhism and Taoism. I am dealing only with those religions whose members are willing to kill for their beliefs.

Besides teaching militancy in general, there is another feature of the warlike religions that might make warriors of the religion better fighters: belief in the afterlife. When you believe that there is an afterlife in which you will be eternally rewarded, you are much braver on the battlefield than the atheist who is shaking in his boots about the prospect that his consciousness may end forever. With no belief in an afterlife, 9/11 would never have happened. There would be no suicide bombers anywhere. Who knows how many massacres might have been avoided if there was no such thing as the maxim "Kill them all and let God sort them out"? Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins theorizes that that is the reason why almost all cultures have some sort of belief in the afterlife: all of our ancestors who didn't were beaten on the battlefield.

As for why religions quarrel with each other, it isn't hard to see why. Religious people have some very deep-rooted beliefs about how the universe operates. These beliefs influence the life of the believer every day, and like anybody they are reluctant to just give up on something they have invested so much time and effort in. It's a big disappointment to realize that you've been working your whole life to get on the good side of a deity that doesn't exist. So they hold onto their beliefs with steadfast faith, complete unquestioning dogma in the ideas which their culture has taught them. And, incidentally, they don't have any real proof that their religion's tenets are any truer than those of any other religion. But this does not sway the believer, who must under all circumstances not change his mind about anything â?? there are severe psychological and social implications in changing your mind about such fundamental issues as religion. The human brain being what it is, people are very reluctant to do so, even when it means believing in things for which there is no evidence or even things which run counter to the evidence.

So what do two people of differing religions do when they meet each other? Say, for example, a Christian happens upon a Muslim. They discuss their differing belief systems, and realize they have quite a dilemma on their hands: they both have gods who claim that disbelievers in the One True Religion will be severely punished in the afterlife. And yet these are two very different gods with different rules about human affairs, different stories about how the universe works, different demands for its believers. So they can't both be right. They might try to argue the points for a while, with such arguments as "Allah makes me feel tingly when I pray" and "my cousin Joe swears he saw an image of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwhich", but soon they will realize that they're in an even bigger dilemma than they started out in â?? it looks like neither of them is right, or at least that neither God is willing to come out and offer proof of his existence. They just can't seem to dig up any arguments that will make everybody believe in whichever God they grew up believing in.

So they result to the only thing which can possibly resolve such a dispute: violence. From the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition down to Palestinian suicide bombers and the Kashmir conflict, religious conflict all boils down to that simple inability for any religion to show that it is the right one. When scientists have competing theories, they don't kill each other to show the righteousness of their One True Theory. Why do that when you could just argue the evidence and show your opponent that your point of view is undoubtedly the right one? Any good scientist realizes that if he can't do that, if he can't show how his theory best fits the evidence, he has no right claiming the theory to be true in the first place and ends up revising his position. This never happens in religion though, because religions believe themselves to be immune to logic, objectivity and experimentation. There's no evidence, you just have to believe it. Or else. When was the last time you heard a church say something like "Our previous statement x was controversial, and after considering all the arguments of our opponents, and scrutinizing the available evidence, it seems that Islam was right all along about this." Scientists make such concessions all the time. But religions cannot, for the simple reason that they don't have any evidence to scrutinize. When they do look at the evidence all they see is a conspicuous absence of anything suggesting the supernatural even exists, much less that it works according to the model proposed by their particular faith. In those rare cases where a religion does make a concession like that, it takes a really long time. For instance, it took the Roman Catholic Church 359 years to concede in 1992 that Galileo was right after all about the Earth not being at the center of the universe.

On the surface it seems like peacelovers have a simple task ahead of them: teach people to use critical thinking, to base their beliefs upon evidence and to not blindly accept things which don't have any observable evidence going for them. But everybody knows it isn't really that simple. In some countries you can still be killed for saying something like that. And there are lots of people who claim they really do have proof â?? Creationists and the like. It's really faulty "proof", but they're not scientifically literate enough to realize their errors and ultimately it's clear that their "science" is really based on faith. They will not make any falsifiable scientific theories because their "scientific" theories are so entwined with their religious worldview that they would see falsification of the "science" as falsification of the religion, which as I've explained is something that is simply inconceivable for most religious people. Even those who don't claim to have proof seem almost impenetrable by logic: they think that it's okay to have "faith" in an idea if it's comforting enough, even if there isn't anything to show that it's true.

Religious faith is extremely durable. There is no doubt that the vast majority of people alive who are religious will die that way. If we are going to get anywhere in promoting critical thinking, we need to start with the children. Let's teach critical thinking to our children while they are still young and religious indoctrination has not yet rendered the child's worldview immune to logic. Let's stop teaching them to just memorize facts and start teaching them how to do good science, how to rigorously test all new ideas, how to judge whether a theory is in accord with the available evidence, and what to do about theories which are not. Maybe the generation that grows up with that kind of education will be the generation to turn this world into a beautiful, peaceful, religion-free place, and they can spare the world the horrors of religious conflict.

True Christian would have no part in any evil thing! period ,can't blame hate,ethic cleansing,violence,muslim v.s. Christian,the crusades,or the RC church killing millions,,,,these things can not be accounted for being affilated with Christians simply because Christ himself would deny you if you were envovled in any of these things.......Atrue christian would be like Christ!.....so it is not fare to tag christianity as being that way.....Christ drew up a completely different concept for us,........

Mellow Man Reviewed by Mellow Man on 12-10-2005. Religion, war and violence Religious people like to claim that their religion is the one that is going to bring peace to the world, or that their religion in one of many peace-bringing religions out there. They say that followers of their religion, believers in their god(s), donators to their church will be infused with a sense of peace and tranquility and will not want to do harm unto men. Yet in the real world, the history of religious dogma has been the story of constant warfare and strife. Even now we see horrible Rating: 5

[weirdo79]

Sorry Mellow, Christ swore to upheld the old laws (Old testament laws.....) those are some pretty bad mean laws too . I guess Jesus wasnt a true christian though (by your definition) . This is all of course if you believe the bible (which is the only evidence for Christ in the first place despite dogmatic fundies claims that there is archeological proof, funny how no one can ever find this archeologist or the evidence he supposedly found . Not saying he didnt exist just saying theres no evidence). (The claim of Roman writings(factual ones not fables ie: ledgers, court documents) about him can't be found in any museum go ahead email em they do respond). Or if your near my location(southern ontario) go to the ROM (one of my fave places in the world...yes im a dork) and ask one in person ask many in person!

[Polymirize]

Sorry Mellow, Christ swore to upheld the old laws (Old testament laws.....)

I don't actually remember that in the new testament anywhere. Actually quite the opposite. But where in the new testament do you think JC said that?

And yeah, honestly I think the scientific community will have to concede that there's strong evidence that there was some guy calling himself Jesus working as a spiritual teacher sometime in the 35CE period. Nothing about his divinity, but just existence.
Just because you're choosing to rep science doesn't mean you can make it just stop working for people of other beliefs. Science will give you the truth only if you're willing to start from a place of no pre-existing beliefs (which I personally don't even think is possible). But don't try and use it just as a way to doubt away other structures. Do some research of your own...

[weirdo79]

Um poly check the next thread for the cites . Also Discovery recently even did a special , Jesus was in fact one of the most popular names in the Jewish Caste back in those days its like saying "John Smith", so unless he's(whoever is presenting said evidence) referring to a specific preacher that started a religion (when it was actually Paul who started the religion after Jesus's death according to scripture of course). Sorry theres still no evidence of that, im willing TO believe if it did come up. But as of yet theres none, sorry. Least thats what every archeologist ive ever communicated with has said (and its the general consensus apparently according to the majority of museums) So im inclined to take their word for it (even over my own ). Not saying it's not possible nor would I necessarily disbelieve it were I to be told but I would ask for evidence yes.

I did do my research......always have always will.......Email the ROM if you dont believe me or any local NON religion based museum (ie: archeologists not theologians).

Sorry if I peeved ya off, but the scientific community hasnt conceded anything yet in that regard (despite your claim they will have to). Once again I do, do my research....It's fairly simple all museum's and universities have mailing lists (including email) and 99% of professors or archeologists not in the field will respond by the end of the week.....(id agree with your "no pre existing beliefs" as any scientists goes into a hypothesis testing hoping he's right, however mostly he's wrong thats how it progresses).

So I think i'll keep "trying" to stick to the facts . (especially when it throws doubt on any structures , whether there mine or someone elses ). I have no problem admitting im wrong if someone can prove it.

[Polymirize]

Music? Um, why don't you just provide your own cites? I'm just saying, I've leafed through the book and never saw that. I'd hate to end up arguing with the discovery channel though.
If you want to raise the skeptical problem for Jesus, I suppose you can. I just think it would be kinda stupid. Onesided so to speak.
Or do you also doubt that some guy named Socrates (or was it really just Plato?) was kicking it in Greece around 400BCE?
It sounds like you want to deny history to some extent. Understand, I'm not saying there was a "Christ", but there must have been some source of the Q documents, right? (Did the discovery channel cover that?)

You're of course entitled to whatever beliefs you wish to have. Its just when I read your posts I sympathize with how I can only imagine a smart but devout christian feels when he reads a post by some fundamentalist redneck about how god hates queers.

[Oneironaut]

True Christian would have no part in any evil thing! period ,can't blame hate,ethic cleansing,violence,muslim v.s. Christian,the crusades,or the RC church killing millions,,,,these things can not be accounted for being affilated with Christians simply because Christ himself would deny you if you were envovled in any of these things.......Atrue christian would be like Christ!.....so it is not fare to tag christianity as being that way.....Christ drew up a completely different concept for us,........

That's one of the rationalizations that Christians like to give. "Oh, those murderers aren't real Christians". But what makes one a real Christian? I can't just say "Oh, Stalin wasn't a real atheist" just because I don't agree with what he did. Stalin was an atheist, and so am I. I don't have any problem with that. But don't pretend that "real Christians" can't kill or or use violence, especially since that's how Christianity got spread so far and wide in the first place.

It's not hard to find horrendous cruelties and monstrocities in the Bible. We see God ordering his chosen people to commit genocide (1 Samuel 15:2-3), God killing almost every living thing on Earth because some humans irritated him (Noah's Flood), God killing innocent children for the crimes of their parents (the Egyptian plagues), etc. Whether or not Jesus personally approved of killing and violence doesn't really matter. It's what people make of the religion that matters.

Of course I can tie Christianity to such things as the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Crusades on violence. In their times, almost all Christians supported these actions. It doesn't matter whether or not they had the same interpretation as you about Jesus's stance on violence; that's what Christianity was at the time. These people had a set of beliefs about Christ and the supernatural which they called Christianity, and not having a better word for it, that's what I call it. If they weren't Christians, what were they? Certainly they believed strongly in the divinity of Christ, or else they wouldn't have killed in the name of that belief.

Being Christian doesn't mean you do everything in accordance with every principle set out by Jesus Christ. Otherwise, you're not being a "true Christian" because you're holding a conversation with non-believers. Remember what Jesus said about avoiding people with different religious views in Romans 16:17-18:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Regardless of whether you call violent Christians "real Christians" or not, we need some way to explain all the violence and murder done in the name of Christianity. The people who call themselves Christians have historically not been a peace-loving bunch. They have a warlike doctrine and I was just trying to explain how that came to be, and what can be done about it.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

so, if I'm hearing this correctly, it sounds like your problem is much less with religion and more with the closeminded tendency to make realworld truthclaims out of religious "knowledge". As was already discussed, buddhism and taoism are much more philosophical in outlook, or at least, neither claims to truth in such a way that renders other religious views false.

Is the problem religion then? of the fundamentalist outlook?

more like a philosophical version of science.

we want to look at the world with the same volume of logic as a scientist, yet without proving anything, or having anything available to prove anything.

completely mental exerscise, whereas science is a different form of exerscise which relies on physical sources.

oh why, i ask you, must the greatness of the creater of the universe be proven (or disproven) by the contents of the universe it created?

[Oneironaut]

so, if I'm hearing this correctly, it sounds like your problem is much less with religion and more with the closeminded tendency to make realworld truthclaims out of religious "knowledge". As was already discussed, buddhism and taoism are much more philosophical in outlook, or at least, neither claims to truth in such a way that renders other religious views false.

Is the problem religion then? of the fundamentalist outlook?

I think this kind of outlook is inevitable in those belief systems which are more "religious" than "philosophical", that is, they make claims which cannot be verified or falsified by observation and logic. Whether you accept the entire Bible as literally true, or just believe vaguely in God and the divinity of Jesus and such, you're going to need such an outlook. You're going to have to make claims that you just can't prove to disbelievers. But Buddhism and Taoism don't make any wild claims about invisible creatures like gods and souls, so they don't have anything which needs to be taken on faith.

If you want to find out why something is about the Buddhist or Taoist worldviews, there's usually a logical answer to be found, and if you don't agree with something that's okay. There is no such concept as "heresy", because there is nothing to be heretical about. In Taoism, the Tao is just a metaphor for how the universe works, it isn't a real entity that you have to believe is "out there" somewhere, ready to intervene in our world if you ask it real nice. Taoism doesn't pretend to have all the answers on how the universe works. It's just a way of trying to find out. When the Taoist disagrees with someone, he tries to talk it out, because it usually can be talked out if you're not discussing invisible worlds full of invisible creatures that we can't detect.

But in Northern Ireland, they can't just "talk out" whether or not the Pope is God's spokesman. There is just no real logical way to settle that argument with words since it deals with things which can't be measured or observed, which is why they resort to violence to solve their dispute. The "pro-life" extremist can't just prove to the abortion-performing doctor that God considers fetuses sacred, so he resorts to bullets to deal with the problem. The Chechen independence movement can't prove to the Russian government that Allah wants Chechnya to be a separate country, so they resort to terrorism to get their point across. This is just what happens when people make up gods which they deeply believe in but for which there just isn't the slightest bit of evidence.

[juggalo420]

True Christian would have no part in any evil thing! period ,can't blame hate,ethic cleansing,violence,muslim v.s. Christian,the crusades,or the RC church killing millions,,,,these things can not be accounted for being affilated with Christians simply because Christ himself would deny you if you were envovled in any of these things.......Atrue christian would be like Christ!.....so it is not fare to tag christianity as being that way.....Christ drew up a completely different concept for us,........

are you sure christ would deny violent people? i mean in the new testament it seems likes hes haveing a good old time thinking about all those 'sinners' who are gonna 'burn in hell fire' -
a man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."
fuck man, you have to admitt thats one cruel ass mother fucker, its sounds as if he's about to get off at just the thought of people having to burn forever.

thank 'god' your god-child myth is just that, a myth.

[Oneironaut]

are you sure christ would deny violent people? i mean in the new testament it seems likes hes haveing a good old time thinking about all those 'sinners' who are gonna 'burn in hell fire' -
a man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."
fuck man, you have to admitt thats one cruel ass mother fucker, its sounds as if he's about to get off at just the thought of people having to burn forever.

thank 'god' your god-child myth is just that, a myth.

You might also want to mention the following quotes from Jesus:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51)

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)