The myth of religious violence

[Meowzltov]

“Large-scale violence was not linked with religion but with organized theft.” As Armstrong says, simply having adversaries requires that every idea, including religion, be deployed as a part of one’s strategy of establishing the myth of the enemy’s monstrosity.
http://montrealgazette.com/news/wor...o-challenge-the-myth-that-religion-is-violent

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Systematic dehumanisation?

 

[ken777]

“Large-scale violence was not linked with religion but with organized theft.” As Armstrong says, simply having adversaries requires that every idea, including religion, be deployed as a part of one’s strategy of establishing the myth of the enemy’s monstrosity.
http://montrealgazette.com/news/wor...o-challenge-the-myth-that-religion-is-violent

The myth that religion caused violence is as wrong as the myth that atheism caused the violence in Russia & China. There will always be those who use their creed to justify violence.

 

[SteveB28]

The myth that religion caused violence is as wrong as the myth that atheism caused the violence in Russia & China. There will always be those who use their creed to justify violence.

I see. So the people who blow themselves to pieces in various places around the world, the people who fly planes into buildings, the people in Rwanda who slaughtered others, the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the bombing of abortion centres - these would still all be committed if the perpetrators weren't religiously inspired? You would genuinely have us believe that?

 

[Dave-W]

The crusades were NOT religiously motivated?

 

[ken777]

I see. So the people who blow themselves to pieces in various places around the world, the people who fly planes into buildings, the people in Rwanda who slaughtered others, the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the bombing of abortion centres - these would still all be committed if the perpetrators weren't religiously inspired? You would genuinely have us believe that?

If it was religion per se, violence would be more prevalent - billions of people on this planet have strong religious beliefs.

 

[SteveB28]

If it was religion per se, violence would be more prevalent - billions of people on this planet have strong religious beliefs.

You have ignored my question. Are you genuinely trying to convince us that those violent actions would still have occurred if the actors had not been religiously inspired? Do you really think that witches would still have been burnt if no-one believed in witches!?

 

[ken777]

You have ignored my question. Are you genuinely trying to convince us that those violent actions would still have occurred if the actors had not been religiously inspired? Do you really think that witches would still have been burnt if no-one believed in witches!?

The OP addresses the role of religion, not individual motivation. Of course indivduals are motivated by their religious beliefs to do harmful things, just as others are motivated by their love of nature to blow up ships.

 

[Eudaimonist]

“Large-scale violence was not linked with religion but with organized theft.” As Armstrong says, simply having adversaries requires that every idea, including religion, be deployed as a part of one’s strategy of establishing the myth of the enemy’s monstrosity.
http://montrealgazette.com/news/wor...o-challenge-the-myth-that-religion-is-violent

I agree that this is often the case, but I have difficulty rationalizing this for every single case. There does seem to be violence that can't be adequately explained without specifically religious goals and motivations.

I do hope that it is true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SteveB28]

The OP addresses the role of religion, not individual motivation. Of course indivduals are motivated by their religious beliefs to do harmful things, just as others are motivated by their love of nature to blow up ships.

And what exactly do you think religion is!? It is the set of beliefs that people hold which direct their attitudes and actions on a range of issues.

For the third time I ask the question - you say that it is a myth that religious belief causes violence - so, once more, would women have been burnt as 'witches' if no-one had believed that witches had ever existed?

Allow me to answer it for you, since you seem determined to run from it:

The concept of 'witches' is an entirely religious one. Therefore, the concept that they should "not be suffered to live" is also an entirely religious belief.

It is entirely due to religion that women were burnt/hung/strangled as witches!

 

[dayhiker]

To me the message is that violence has decreased for over 300 years not. We can all find multiple events were someone of some religion or philosophy caused pain.
But in general most of us live life free from violence. Just this week I forgot to close my garage door when I drove off. The door was open for all to see for hours.
When I got home everything was still there. The news here reports over and over when a violent thing happen in a neighborhood that this type of thing just doesn't happen in our neighborhood. Violence is rare not common place these days.

 

[ken777]

And what exactly do you think religion is!? It is the set of beliefs that people hold which direct their attitudes and actions on a range of issues.

For the third time I ask the question - you say that it is a myth that religious belief causes violence - so, once more, would women have been burnt as 'witches' if no-one had believed that witches had ever existed?

And I repeat, of course a person's religious belief can cause him/her to do harm. But you are looking at the situation superficially. Many things can be used to justify harmful actions, and I gave you the example of eco-terrorism. There is nothing intrinisically evil about the love of nature but it can be used to justify evil actions.

 

[SteveB28]

And I repeat, of course a person's religious belief can cause him/her to do harm.

Exactly! So you have just described 'religion causing violence'! Something that you also claim to be a myth!

Remember, 'religion' is not an entity of its own. It is the people who share a belief. And when those people actually tell us that their violent actions are due to their beliefs, that my confused friend, is precisely 'religion causing violence'!

 

[SteveB28]

Let me ask you a related question:

When people commit positive acts as part of their religion (charity work, volunteering, etc) would you also consider it a myth that 'religion causes good acts'? Would you claim that it is just "individual motivation" and nothing to do with the religion?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Many things can be used to justify harmful actions, and I gave you the example of eco-terrorism. There is nothing intrinisically evil about the love of nature but it can be used to justify evil actions.

Wow, if that love of nature casts a shadow over one's love of humanity, I'd say that such love is intrinsically evil. It must be viewed in the context of one's hierarchy of values.

I doubt that a proper view is as simple as saying that the love of nature is merely "used to justify evil actions". That love of nature forms the context in which one sees values and their justifications. If one's love of nature stems from the view "nature good, men bad", then one's ecological worldview is to blame for any ecoterrorism that the ecoterrorist sees as justified and good even though human beings are hurt.

Indeed, this example convinces me more than the religion examples that evil can be promoted other than by a desire to get some personal or tribal advantage (such as wealth or power). I believe that ecoterrorists are generally sincere people who care little about such values, and really are motivated by their love of nature.

Nature über alles!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ken777]

Exactly! So you have just described 'religion causing violence'! Something that you also claim to be a myth!

So you would be happy to go along with the notion that the love of nature causes eco-terrorism?

Remember, 'religion' is not an entity of its own.

I disagee. Christianity, like history, or cosmology, is an entity of its own.

It is the people who share a belief. And when those people actually tell us that their violent actions are due to their beliefs, that my confused friend, is precisely 'religion causing violence'!

You can put it that way if it makes you happy but it is a superficial explanation. Christianity did not cause the crusades, Christianity was used to justify the crusades.

When people commit positive acts as part of their religion (charity work, volunteering, etc) would you also consider it a myth that 'religion causes good acts'? Would you claim that it is just "individual motivation" and nothing to do with the religion?

Religion does not cause good acts. Good works are a product of an individual person’s perception of his/her religious beliefs. Not all Christians are motivated to do charity work. In the church nursing home where I help out we are always looking for volunteers.

 

[Meowzltov]

I agree that this is often the case, but I have difficulty rationalizing this for every single case. There does seem to be violence that can't be adequately explained without specifically religious goals and motivations.

I believe they are making a generalization. For example, the "religious wars" after the Reformation had more to do with princes wanting to be free from the emperor and the pope than religion. However, I'm hard pressed to find a reason other than religion for ISIS' terrorism.

 

[keith99]

You have ignored my question. Are you genuinely trying to convince us that those violent actions would still have occurred if the actors had not been religiously inspired? Do you really think that witches would still have been burnt if no-one believed in witches!?

It may be quite unfair to lay the blame for the burning of witches at they foot of religion. At the foot of superstition yes, and if a Christian looks back and says that the Church did far to little to stop it I would not argue. But it is superstition that fueled the fires.

 

[Meowzltov]

You have ignored my question. Are you genuinely trying to convince us that those violent actions would still have occurred if the actors had not been religiously inspired? Do you really think that witches would still have been burnt if no-one believed in witches!?

The burning of witches was not so much from the fear of witchcraft as fear of women. It targeted single, independent or powerful women, or in some cases, just all the women in the town.

 

[SteveB28]

So you would be happy to go along with the notion that the love of nature causes eco-terrorism?

Weren't you lecturing before about addressing the OP? You are attempting here to erect a strawman, in order to avoid a difficult question.

I disagee. Christianity, like history, or cosmology, is an entity of its own.

Wrong. It is a philosophy. A philosophy developed by humans. It exists solely in the minds of men.

You can put it that way if it makes you happy but it is a superficial explanation. Christianity did not cause the crusades, Christianity was used to justify the crusades.

You strain credulity. Let me ask you a variant of the earlier question: Are you really suggesting that the Crusades would still have taken place without a religion directing them?