Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement

[lightgigantic]

Frankly, I am very surprised when people say “Religion causes war” (the logical conclusion being that religion should be abandoned for a more peaceful world), particularly in the light of a century of political ideology that has seen perhaps more civilian casualties than any other. The purpose of this thread is to examine the general principles people apply when they make such assumptions.

If one examines the nature of human violence one can see that there is a certain class of human being that is prone to violence and tends to justify it according to the prominent symbols of social authority (It doesn’t matter what the symbol is). Therefore you see that violence has been carried out in the name of freedom, justice, economic development and so many other things as well as religion.

If it is advocated that religion should be dismissed due to instances of associated violence the general principle one is advocating is that the symbol associated with violence should automatically be renounced. Interestingly enough, if we uniformly apply that general principle we get a very strange social picture, because even society itself would have to be given up (along with freedom, justice, economic development etc), since violence is commonly associated with issues of society.

Obviously it is the case that violence is an attribute of human nature, and it requires much more than extinguishing the guise of the symbols it appears under to make the world more peaceful.

In fact one of the special strengths of religion is that the normative value system is very apparent, thus a slackening of religion (or the propagation of improper understanding of religion) tends to pave the way for an influx of violence.

 

[Sarkus]

If one examines the nature of human violence one can see that there is a certain class of human being that is prone to violence and tends to justify it according to the prominent symbols of social authority (It doesn’t matter what the symbol is).

Please cite your evidence.
How are you classing human beings?
What are the signs that put one in this category of being "prone to violence"?

Therefore you see that violence has been carried out in the name of freedom, justice, economic development and so many other things as well as religion.

Again - please cite your evidence.
Do not assume that we see - especially as you have not supported anything you have yet stated.
It might be self-evident to you, but you do need to support your claims.

Also - you need to provide evidence that the causes of freedom, justice etc that you claim are other causes of violence are not related to religion.
e.g. is the tyranny / political status that causes the act of "freedom" not religiously driven. The intervening party may not have religion as its driver but the non-free state may be religiously driven.

If it is advocated that religion should be dismissed due to instances of associated violence the general principle one is advocating is that the symbol associated with violence should automatically be renounced. Interestingly enough, if we uniformly apply that general principle we get a very strange social picture, because even society itself would have to be given up (along with freedom, justice, economic development etc), since violence is commonly associated with issues of society.

Strawman, and probably a couple of other logical fallacies - including argument from consequence.

The argument is not one of "religion is the ONLY thing that leads to violence" - but that "religion causes violence".
Your statement that we should thus also renounce anything else that leads to violence is a red-herring as it is not part of that which you are arguing against.
Further, you have (as I have already stated) not yet successfully argued that violence derived from "freedom, justice..." etc are not religiously driven on either side.

Obviously it is the case that violence is an attribute of human nature, and it requires much more than extinguishing the guise of the symbols it appears under to make the world more peaceful.

Obviously? Cite sources, please.
I'm not necessarily disputing it, but please cite your sources.
And if you merely want the world to be "more peaceful" then extinguishing any driver for violence will surely bring this about?
Or are you claiming that every violent person will always find any excuse to be violent?

In fact one of the special strengths of religion is that the normative value system is very apparent, thus a slackening of religion (or the propagation of improper understanding of religion) tends to pave the way for an influx of violence.

You are now talking about two separate things.
Firstly - the slackening of religion would be a step only taken in the practical attempts to remove religion from society. It is thus another red-herring. No-one is advocating actually removing religion - only that the world would be less violent without it. This process of removing, and the consequences thereof, are not under scrutiny and should not form part of your argument (yes - another logical fallacy on your part).

Secondly - the propagation of improper understanding of religion is most likely the entire cause of religion being a cause of violence in the first instance. For example, if all religions had "love thy neighbour" as a key teaching, and all religions were taught correctly, and was understood properly, then there should be no violence as a result of religion.
HOWEVER, this is not reality. The reality of religion IS improper teachings and propagation of misunderstandings. And this reality is what one has to deal with.

 

[perplexity]

Never mind the fallacy.

Does it actually help?

--- Ron.

 

[Satyr]

Frankly, I am very surprised when people say “Religion causes war” (the logical conclusion being that religion should be abandoned for a more peaceful world), particularly in the light of a century of political ideology that has seen perhaps more civilian casualties than any other. The purpose of this thread is to examine the general principles people apply when they make such assumptions.

If one examines the nature of human violence one can see that there is a certain class of human being that is prone to violence and tends to justify it according to the prominent symbols of social authority (It doesn’t matter what the symbol is). Therefore you see that violence has been carried out in the name of freedom, justice, economic development and so many other things as well as religion.

If it is advocated that religion should be dismissed due to instances of associated violence the general principle one is advocating is that the symbol associated with violence should automatically be renounced. Interestingly enough, if we uniformly apply that general principle we get a very strange social picture, because even society itself would have to be given up (along with freedom, justice, economic development etc), since violence is commonly associated with issues of society.

Obviously it is the case that violence is an attribute of human nature, and it requires much more than extinguishing the guise of the symbols it appears under to make the world more peaceful.

In fact one of the special strengths of religion is that the normative value system is very apparent, thus a slackening of religion (or the propagation of improper understanding of religion) tends to pave the way for an influx of violence.

am always driven to evaluate a dogma or a value system or a moral system not by what it proposes to be but by what it actually is.

How does one judge what something is?
By what it produces.

It the case of religion it should be judged not by what it pretends to be but by the kind of minds and human beings it produces.

Looking back at religious history, it appears that the products of its passing have been destruction, authoritarianism, backward thinking, wars, persecutions and lies.

 

[Boss Foxx]

"Cause" might not be a good word. Maybe "symptom" is better. Just spitballing.

 

[VitalOne]

true true, if the entire world was atheistic, then their would still be war (look at Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc...all atheists)

If the entire world was non-religious then there would still be war

If the entire world was of one religion, then there would still be war

If the entire world was of many religions, then there would still be war

So the cause of war must be something else

 

[Prince_James]

Satyr:

"Looking back at religious history, it appears that the products of its passing have been destruction, authoritarianism, backward thinking, wars, persecutions and lies. "

Might not we say that also about society as a whole? INcluding even the most primitive of humans living in bands?

 

[KennyJC]

true true, if the entire world was atheistic, then their would still be war (look at Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc...all atheists)

Dictators. Not the same as atheist citizens being a root cause of war.

If the entire world was non-religious then there would still be war

Of course. But religious ideologies are a big part of war, and without it, there would be less.

 

[The Devil Inside]

without automated mobility, there would be less war as well..and seeing as it is a large part of the last 75 years of warfare...we should get rid of IT, too?
come on...the creation of the airplane and/or armored tank prompted warfare in the last 75 years just as much as religion.
they just arent used as the "open declaration purpose".
do you think hitler would have tried his shit if he didnt feel like he had a monstrous advantage over the polish CAVALRY?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If one examines the nature of human violence one can see that there is a certain class of human being that is prone to violence and tends to justify it according to the prominent symbols of social authority (It doesn’t matter what the symbol is). ”

Please cite your evidence.
How are you classing human beings?
What are the signs that put one in this category of being "prone to violence"?

those persons who perpetuate violence on an organised level by appealing to people's sense of authority (albeit religious, racial, financial, etc etc authority)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Therefore you see that violence has been carried out in the name of freedom, justice, economic development and so many other things as well as religion. ”

Again - please cite your evidence.
Do not assume that we see - especially as you have not supported anything you have yet stated.
It might be self-evident to you, but you do need to support your claims.

erm - they didn't teach history at your school?

Also - you need to provide evidence that the causes of freedom, justice etc that you claim are other causes of violence are not related to religion.
e.g. is the tyranny / political status that causes the act of "freedom" not religiously driven. The intervening party may not have religion as its driver but the non-free state may be religiously driven.

Ok examine any civil dispute the CIA has had amongst a myriad of third world countries, or WW1 or 2 or the vietnam war - or what went down under Maoism or Stalinism - or the tamil tigers in sri lanka - how much of a list do you want? Even amongst apparent religiously driven groups like the IRA - if they are religiously driven it is not clear what is the exact religious philosophical principle they are in favour of (since the IRA has been largely pacified by granting the Irish republic liberties that have absolutely nothing to do with religion)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If it is advocated that religion should be dismissed due to instances of associated violence the general principle one is advocating is that the symbol associated with violence should automatically be renounced. Interestingly enough, if we uniformly apply that general principle we get a very strange social picture, because even society itself would have to be given up (along with freedom, justice, economic development etc), since violence is commonly associated with issues of society. ”

Strawman, and probably a couple of other logical fallacies - including argument from consequence.

Actually I am just universally applying the principles you are suggesting - this is one way to determine whether an argument is sound - if you are not suggesting that the symbols that promote war should be given up (and thus minimise the appearance of war) what are you suggesting?

The argument is not one of "religion is the ONLY thing that leads to violence" - but that "religion causes violence".
Your statement that we should thus also renounce anything else that leads to violence is a red-herring as it is not part of that which you are arguing against.

So you are not advocating that religion should be given up? If you are arguing that religion should be given up what are th egeneral principles one should apply to determine whether a symbol that takes the guise of violence should be given up or not?

Further, you have (as I have already stated) not yet successfully argued that violence derived from "freedom, justice..." etc are not religiously driven on either side.

Seems you are totally ignorant of contemporary history, or more likely, just pretending to be for the sake of argument

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Obviously it is the case that violence is an attribute of human nature, and it requires much more than extinguishing the guise of the symbols it appears under to make the world more peaceful. ”

Obviously? Cite sources, please.

Violence is seen to appear within and without any number of given symbols
- its literally as easy as picking up a newspaper

I'm not necessarily disputing it, but please cite your sources.
And if you merely want the world to be "more peaceful" then extinguishing any driver for violence will surely bring this about?
Or are you claiming that every violent person will always find any excuse to be violent?

I am claiming that violence finds its expression through symbols of authority, and that since it is an absurdity to remove symbols of authority from society, removing the symbols that assume the guise of violence is an equally absurd proposal.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In fact one of the special strengths of religion is that the normative value system is very apparent, thus a slackening of religion (or the propagation of improper understanding of religion) tends to pave the way for an influx of violence. ”

You are now talking about two separate things.
Firstly - the slackening of religion would be a step only taken in the practical attempts to remove religion from society.

Virtually the whole western world has had religion slackened since post ww2 - and lo and behold - they are stil as violent as ever - as for removing religion - I established that in the intro as the logical conclusion of the premise that religion causes war - at the very least it is a common conclusion expressed, particularly by an atheist

It is thus another red-herring. No-one is advocating actually removing religion - only that the world would be less violent without it. This process of removing, and the consequences thereof, are not under scrutiny and should not form part of your argument (yes - another logical fallacy on your part).

So what of Perplexity's comment - fallacies aside, would removing religion make a difference to the occurance in war? If not, what's your point?

Secondly - the propagation of improper understanding of religion is most likely the entire cause of religion being a cause of violence in the first instance.
For example, if all religions had "love thy neighbour" as a key teaching, and all religions were taught correctly, and was understood properly, then there should be no violence as a result of religion.
HOWEVER, this is not reality. The reality of religion IS improper teachings and propagation of misunderstandings. And this reality is what one has to deal with.

Have you been to places in the world that still operate out of jungle culture? - in otherwords just the concept that it is "bad" to kill someone is not accepted - on the contrary they think that if I can kill someone I am the good guy (the evidence being that they can take away everything you own while you are lying in a pool of blood or whatever - so you would obviously be the loser) - in the absence of sane normative values, this is the picture you get - whatever may be lacking in the proper establishment of a religion (or its improper manifestation) at least you have a leg to argue on, or an authority to appeal to, that murder is wrong

 

[lightgigantic]

am always driven to evaluate a dogma or a value system or a moral system not by what it proposes to be but by what it actually is.

How does one judge what something is?
By what it produces.

It the case of religion it should be judged not by what it pretends to be but by the kind of minds and human beings it produces.

Looking back at religious history, it appears that the products of its passing have been destruction, authoritarianism, backward thinking, wars, persecutions and lies.

To be equally unbiased you could compare your observations and investigations to instances to social dogmas that don't innvolve religion. You will draw up identical results

 

[lightgigantic]

Dictators. Not the same as atheist citizens being a root cause of war.

Still don't see any practical terms of peace coming out of the philosophy of atheism - seems like they still squabble just as well, if not with more viciousness

Of course. But religious ideologies are a big part of war, and without it, there would be less.

What were the exact religious isues in contention that catalysed these wars (which is just a 12 year period from 1990 -2002)?

1990-1991 Gulf War
1990-1994 Rwandan Civil War
1990-1998 Tuareg Rebellion
1991-2001 Yugoslav Wars
1991 Slovenian War
1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence
1992-1995 Bosnian War
1998-1999 Kosovo War
1991-1993 Georgian Civil War
1991-1992 Georgian-Ossetian Conflict
1992-1993 Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict
1991-1997 Sierra Leone Civil War
1992-1997 Tajikistan Civil War
1993-1999 Burundi Civil War
1994 1994 Yemeni Civil War
1994-1996 First Chechen War
1995 Cenepa War
1996-1997 First Congo War
1998-2000 Ethiopia-Eritrea War
1998-2002 Second Congo War
1999 Kargil War
1999 Dagestan War
1999-2003 Second Liberian Civil War
2000-Present Al-Aqsa Intifada
2001-Present United States war in Afghanistan
2001-Present Civil War in Côte d'Ivoire

 

[VitalOne]

Dictators. Not the same as atheist citizens being a root cause of war.

Thats the point, its not atheism, theism or religion itself that causes war. Its the person. Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were all known atheists and Stalin killed more people than Hitler. This shows that atheists as well theists engage in war and if all people were atheists there would still be war.

Of course. But religious ideologies are a big part of war, and without it, there would be less.

Not neccessarily. If you look back at a LOT of major wars fought, they weren't about religion at all, rather they were about idealogies, land, etc....

War would probably exist in the same way it does now. Except people will be fighting over different things.

As long as greed and anger exists there will always be war.

 

[Satyr]

To be equally unbiased you could compare your observations and investigations to instances to social dogmas that don't innvolve religion. You will draw up identical results

Exactly.
Making religion just another ideology seeking to perpetuate itself.
A meme….Look it up.

Man and all life is confrontational, tribal and selfish.
Ideals and ideologies simply harness and direct these natural tendencies.

Religion directs it outward, attempting to create a stable and harmonious interior.

The enemy of any religion is reason.
It is the ‘evil’ factor that expelled man from “paradise” and creates this rift (sin) between man and the unknown whole (God).
This rift, supposedly, was healed by Jesus who was supposed to save us from our own reason.

Reason is the antithesis of faith.
It seeks to not just believe in the unknown but to know it - to reach and overcome God (as the concept of the unknown and universal) and not to submit and grovel at its feet, forever a subservient and a vassal to it.

Scripture, in Christianity, represents the beginning and end of religious reason.
It IS the word of God, wheather we have fist-hand knowledge of whom or what wrote it or thought it up or not.

One cannot question Scripture but only submit to it.
Thinking ends there and faith takes over.

Liker I said elsewhere, in many instances the more ridiculous and absurd the idea needing faith the more faith becomes a sacrifice proving the mind’s faithfulness – it represents the mind’s ability to overcome evil within itself, in other words its ability to overcome its own reason.

 

[perplexity]

Exactly.
Man and all life is confrontational, tribal and selfish.
Ideals and ideologies simply harness and direct these natural tendencies.

There he goes again, the one trick pony, as if it had never been said before.

Is that what you put on a Birthday card to your Mother, Satyr, or too selfish to be bothered like that?

Does she question your Scripture, or just submit to it?

Is your sort of super cynic thinking a cause of violence, is that the gist of this?

--- Ron.

 

[spidergoat]

I agree that humans can be violent under certian circumstances, but I do not agree that the particular kind of violence associated with fundamentalist religions is just a casual association and not causal. When a religion teaches that certain tenets of the religion are of supreme importance to everyone, far above even our well being in this life, then any methods become justified in the promotion of it's ideals. Democratic instituions become secondary, peace becomes secondary, rights become secondary. For example, when a church teaches that God will punish all of society for violating certain anachronistic social rules, then the question becomes, "to what lengths will you go to save all of humanity?". You might even sacrifice your own place in heaven for the "good" of others, you might even kill, you might even stoop to bribery and dirty politics to get your group's way. This is exactly what happened with the Republican party, with the Oklahoma City attack, with Al Quida, with David Koresh. I think any ideology could have this effect, but religion is particulary tricky, since it portends to describe universal, existential, and ultimate truths, while political ideologies only describe methods of social order.

 

[S.A.M.]

So people are less likely to defend an ideology, (e.g. freedom) or land, (e.g. country) than they are to defend religion?

 

[spidergoat]

I would say so, since religion is seen as the Ultimate. You can always comprimise on other issues, but there is no comprimise with religious ideas (typically).

 

[Satyr]

Returning the thread to its original topic:

Any belief in the absolute causes violence.

Conflict in nature is caused by the belief in the absolute ‘I’.
Any proposition aiming at an absolute, wants to eliminate any blemish or imperfection from its midst and from its path.

Even the desire for self-overcoming is the pursuit of the absolute ‘I’ and the attempt to eliminate imperfection by overcoming it.

 

[S.A.M.]

I would say so, since religion is seen as the Ultimate. You can always comprimise on other issues, but there is no comprimise with religious ideas (typically).

Hmm I believe religion can be an effective recruiting tool, just like patriotism. In fact if you look at groups like the KKK, the Nazis, militant Islamists, I'd say that any common factor perceived as superior (race, ethnicity, religion) could be an effective tool for recruiting those who could be convinced of the need to "defend" it. Religion just happens to be a larger group and hence more visible. There have been more than 300 suicide attacks by the Tamil Tigers. Yet, they never received the same widespread acclaim inspite of their greater effectiveness (they killed the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi), because there are not so many of them and they were primarily based in the Indian subcontinent, which has no history of preemptive strikes, war-mongering, UN involvement which includes the UNSC or even economic impact and blow by blow TV reporting. I believe we saw the televised report of the Rajiv Gandhi bombing for maybe 3 days (with minimal visual repetition and mostly journalistic reporting of events) with latter reports focusing on what next and how to move on or resolve the issue. There was no indepth analysis of the psyche and motivation of the Tamil Tigers or their grievances. It was a crime it was treated as such and it was eventually resolved with the signing of a peace treaty with the Tigers.