Ireland
-
By way of your arguement, "Religion is only violent to the extent that humanity is violent...", we could simply just skirt every conflict and say "oh but it is human nature, violent creatures are we." I do agree, we are a rather violent lot and a lot of it has to do with our origins in the fight for survival. But frankly there is not much we can do to kerb those violent tendencies. We are progressing as a race, I believe, becoming more "civilised" and realising the extent of our actions to a degree where we are actively starting to try and right the wrongs, and also prevent wrongs being wrought. However to reach a kind of stability from which we can progress further we need to look at the roots of our beliefs and change them for the good of everyone else, no matter how strongly you believe in them. Christians believe their way is the only way, Islamics -while protesting that their religion literally means peace- believe they are better than the rest and all that oppose them (in whatever way) must simply be cleansed from their world. Living in SA we have quite a gamut of religions and beliefs. From staunch dutch reformists who believe "darkies are animals and should be used as such", to rabid Christians hell bent on "helping" everyone (but through opression rather than enlightenment). From the muslims who feel everyone else is unclean, to the Jews who think they are a cut above the rest. From the hindus who preach peace, tolerance etc. and then persecute in the lust for power to the proto-religion's of the African tribes who want the trappings of the west but not its responsibilities. I know there are plenty of other reasons for our wars, clashes, skirmishes and disagreements, but on every continent, in every country, through every town one will find religious intolerance which leads to hatred and violence. My history is not very good but I believe even the good old U.S of A (bless their socks) has had it's fair shair of religious violence. --------- Anyway. Being of Scottish descent and not a believer in organised religion (very different from personal religion) I can only wish that more people practised what they preach. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
Still, you skirt my essential point. It is an easy thing to demonstrate that religion is not the cause of human violence. That cause lies much deeper within our intrinsic nature. Obviously, one could solve the problem of religion, yet not solve the problem of violence. So why is there so much emphasis on solving the problem of religion among certain philosophical quarters? Could it be that, far from having any desire to solve the problem of violence, violence is in fact a useful ally to those wanting to solve the problem or religion, simply because religion represents a competing source of moral authority? Speaking of competing sources of moral authority, what sense does it make to speak of righting wrongs or to "...prevent wrongs being wrought."? In the absence of religion what does it mean for something to be "wrong"? If "wrong" is not defined by God, than by who? You? Me? The State? Do we decide democratically the difference between right and wrong? The entire reason statements about right vs. wrong even make any sense in modern dialogue is due directly to the influence of religion upon our perceptions of the human condition. The entire thrust of your argument comes roaring out of the sentiments religion itself has imbued into our character. The irony is that without right vs. wrong being defined by a people's body of commonly held, grass-roots, non-secular, religious beliefs, it must be defined by the state. The state, as always, will be more than happy to fill that void in our lives. God only knows where that will end. More gas chambers, I'm sure. :rose:
-
Still, you skirt my essential point. It is an easy thing to demonstrate that religion is not the cause of human violence. That cause lies much deeper within our intrinsic nature. Obviously, one could solve the problem of religion, yet not solve the problem of violence. So why is there so much emphasis on solving the problem of religion among certain philosophical quarters? Could it be that, far from having any desire to solve the problem of violence, violence is in fact a useful ally to those wanting to solve the problem or religion, simply because religion represents a competing source of moral authority? Speaking of competing sources of moral authority, what sense does it make to speak of righting wrongs or to "...prevent wrongs being wrought."? In the absence of religion what does it mean for something to be "wrong"? If "wrong" is not defined by God, than by who? You? Me? The State? Do we decide democratically the difference between right and wrong? The entire reason statements about right vs. wrong even make any sense in modern dialogue is due directly to the influence of religion upon our perceptions of the human condition. The entire thrust of your argument comes roaring out of the sentiments religion itself has imbued into our character. The irony is that without right vs. wrong being defined by a people's body of commonly held, grass-roots, non-secular, religious beliefs, it must be defined by the state. The state, as always, will be more than happy to fill that void in our lives. God only knows where that will end. More gas chambers, I'm sure. :rose:
Ok, your issue head on ;) : I did imply that without religion all this violence would end. I apologise, that is not what I really meant and is not at all true. I not a religious man and yet even I at times I exhibit violent tendencies. That all stems from our past, our reptilian brain core. Add on to that often irrational thoughts, jealousy and many other aspects and even without religion we all have violent tendencies. We as a species are not mature or developed enough to have eradicated violence from our ways. Saying that, by having religion in our lives we are adding an extra way to hate each other, discriminate against each other and generally disagree with each other. In the same vein we are also adding an extra way to love one another, respect other people and find common ground with fellow humans. With the good comes the bad, and vice versa. However to me religion often is too extreme. It ellicits irrationally strong reactions from people when one either disagrees or opposes their beliefs. It also gives an excuse to some to persecute others in the name of their religion. Also you say "violence is in fact a useful ally to those wanting to solve the problem of religion". I personally have never used violence to solve my problems with religion, I do not stone christians into disbelief. I simply disagree and point out why, in most cases rationally, some times heatedly :). In fact I would say most religious persecution has been between two opposing beliefs, both religious. Yes there has been much religous vs. non-religous groups, but in a way they are really competing beliefs (as you said.) When two religions meet there is a far greater chance of something going terribly awry than when a religious and non-religious body meet. Oh and do not get me started on the "without God how would we know what is wrong and what is right?" arguement. If I had been born a heathen native in a remote pacific island I truly believe that I would know it is wrong to kill another, simply because it hurts the community and environment one lives in. Same with most forms of violence, stealing etc. There is a lot of logic to morals. Also a lot of religous decrees on right or wrong I feel are antiquated and not fit for our modern world. At the end of the day (and I am sure we could go on, and on =) my opinion is that religion has served its purpose in the past, it still has a purposes to serve in the present and future but to a lesser degree. Religious factions must become more tolerant and realise that even the