Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
There is actually abundant evidence that religion does not cause violence.
Hmm. What about the centuries-old conflict between Christianity and Islam, which arguably is still going on today?
That could be considered part of the evidence also, yes, but if we try to analyze the data what conclusion can we logically draw from it? As I mentioned there are countless religious groups across the world that are not violent.
Let me offer another example. Say you developed a compound and wanted to apply the scientific method to see whether or not it causes violence in people that consume it. You conduct experiments with ten groups of people, giving everyone in the ten groups the compound. If five out of ten groups demonstrate violence can you logically conclude that the compound causes violence?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
No, it is possible that a considerable sector of society is susceptible to the influence of that compound, and 50% is a high enough number to cause concern. that's one in 2 people. I'd say that was reasonable concern...
That's why there are control groups. In control groups, one out of two groups may demonstrate violence without having taken the compound.
Does anyone believe that a society or social group without religion would not demonstrate violence? What if there were scarce resources? What if there were a percentage of the population that wanted to dominate the group?
Yes, finding an objective measurable thing in psychology can lose the trail of the non-measurable. For example when meditation is reduced to alpha waves or whatever it defeats the non-doing nature of meditation and establishes 'good' meditation. What if you don't form the alpha waves? Then you feel you are not doing it right and it becomes samsaric and ego-driven. I'm not saying science can't intersect I am just saying that the focus turns to measurable disease/healthy dynamic whereas dharma says that everyone is sick and nobody is healthy. Buddhism says everyone is poisoned and of course also in the tantras says that everyone has Buddha nature to be uncovered. Psychology says that there are specific diseases; you walk in the door and you get a diagnosis.
I always found it curious that when bad things happen God is to blame but when good things happen there is no credit given.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I have found the reverse to be true. i have heard people talking about personal triumphs going on about "you know, god was there for me, and he helped me through it, and I know god saw me and he was in my corner...."
I have never, but never seen or heard anyone (like a footballer, thy always seem to cross themselves going onto the field) who's lost, say something like, "well, I prayed to god, but obviously he didn't think I should win, and didn't consider my input to be worth a first...."
god's always there at the finishing line, but it would appear that anything less, he just creeps quietly out of shot.....
Imagine the whole of human history without any organised religion. Would there have been more or less conflict and war? It's impossible to give a definitive answer, but I suspect there would have been less.
@Porpoise, I think you don't quite see finer point of the question.
Several years ago I read sections of a book (don't now remember the author or title), the basic premise of which was that a natural human function is that people join "clans" (my term...can't remember the term the author used), and that these clans, to some degree or another, come into conflict.
I don't think there's any question about that. We here in this forum have joined a "clan" of people who call themselves Buddhists. I belong to several "clans" -- a senior citizen group, a games group, etc. And always have. And so have you.
In overall society, yes, some clans are based on religion. Some on ethnicity (probably a much stronger clan, historically, than religion. Some on geography. Etc. All of these clans can sometimes come into conflict. It seems to be the conflict aspect that is common, not religion.
And then, whatever the reason, conflict results. And, it seems to me that the excuse may be religion or geographic/culture, or whatever. But it's still the individual's choice that makes him/her join the conflict to one degree or another.
My adopted son was Muslim. When friends of his who were Muslim would come to the house, they would often talk middle eastern politics (a fairly tame version of it), and the topic of Israel and the Jews would come up. And acting as someone who doesn't know, I would say something along the lines of, "So what's the basis of all this conflict between the Jews and Muslims?" A blank look would come over their face. Not one could ever actually tell me what it was all about...other than "tradition"...not one ever actually gave me a religious basis for the conflict.
If you look at the wars of Southeast Asia between what is now Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand through several centuries, none of those wars appeared to be be based on religion, particularly since for most of that time they were all Buddhist (of course, Cambodia/Khmer was Hindu at first). They even attacked each others Buddhist temples, melted down the gold, and took monks into slavery. So they weren't religious wars. The religion seemed to be irrelevant.
My point: if anything, religion may be the excuse for violence that is actually based on other cultural factors.
If you wish to understand killing & war, one need only look at ones own adversarial tendencies. War is the organization of those tendencies, religion one of it's many vehicles but never forget that the real engine of war, has always been our own heart.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
"Loving the world, to me, is no chore - my big problem's the guy next door...!"
... the real engine of war, has always been our own heart.
Do you really believe this, that at core we are warmongers?
I really wish I could blame it all on those other guys. My zafu & history says otherwise though. I am not sure that I'd say our warmongering was our core but we've made it pretty close to that. As far back as I can get a hold of believable recorded history, humanity has acted adversarially to everything. I think that this adversarial approach is how humanity has persevered and survived. War is just the organized adversarial expression of our daily chaotic adversarial attitudes. I also think that it is a conditioning that we can stop feeding but make no mistake about it, we are all killers in wait beneath civilizations skin thin veneer.
I'd be the first to say that we're not a rational species, and I don't need to look any further than myself to see that. I would not say that in our hearts we want to kill, however.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2012
Rather than be warmongers, i believe that most people who go to war (or more precisely, those who decide armed conflict is necessary) do so out of a sense of protecting something, whether it's an ideal or something more tangible. Every war, in the eyes of those who strike the first blow, is justifiable. Nobody 'starting' a war says that "well, we just thought it would be a good idea, because we felt like it." we're not warmongers. We feel we need to righteously defend.
If there ever was a dominant transmission throughout humanity, it is our adversarial approach to life. I am often surprised at how people can assume all kinds of responsibility for the various ills of the world except war which is always someone else's doing or is perfectly justifiable.. This attitude of a them and us mentality is precisely what allows war to occur. The worries for what someone may loose or feels protective of, is the unavoidable outcome of adversarial thinking. We are mostly warriors who individually fight which every so often coalesces into the group fighting that we call war.
The four noble truths are my method for trying to let go of adversarial conditioning.
As How may be suggesting the question is too simplistic to be of much use. Maybe you mean to ask something more specific or at least form some kind of hypothesis. How exactly do you think religion may cause violence?
There is actually abundant evidence that religion does not cause violence. There are countless religious groups across the world that are not violent.
Does religion cause violence? is a perfectly succinct hypothesis to test; the null-hypothesis being religion does not cause violence. You could make it even more so by focusing on different types of violence if you wish.
I don't think there is actually any evidence for or against this hypothesis, as no-one's done the research. Anecdote is not evidence.
How religion causes violence would be an interesting question, but a moot point until it is demonstrated it does cause violence.
You actually have made a good analogy here.
Does ice cream cause us to overeat? Does religion cause violence?
To me, the answer to both is no. Millions of people eat ice cream because they enjoy it, but do not over-indulge, so they don't get fat. Some choose to over-indulge and they get fat (like me).
Same with religion.
There is ample evidence (i'll post it if you like) that having consumer products, like ice-creams, abundant in a society causes obesity to rise. How much free-will do you think humans actually have (perhaps that's the crux of the debate)?
Let me offer another example. Say you developed a compound and wanted to apply the scientific method to see whether or not it causes violence in people that consume it. You conduct experiments with ten groups of people, giving everyone in the ten groups the compound. If five out of ten groups demonstrate violence can you logically conclude that the compound causes violence?
That's only one amongst many ways to conduct research. The 'best' way to test the hypothesis would be to bring up a number of babies, some with a religion (active group), others without (control group) and then assess them for violence throughout their lives. The more babies in the test, the more accurate the results. I think we can agree such research would be unethical. Realistic methods would be cohort studies, case-control studies and various other epidemiological style studies. Psychology and sociology may be soft sciences, but they're the best we have for answering these types of questions.
Does anyone believe that a society or social group without religion would not demonstrate violence?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Rather, there is more violence in the proximity of various religions.
If you wish to understand killing & war, one need only look at ones own adversarial tendencies. War is the organization of those tendencies, religion one of it's many vehicles but never forget that the real engine of war, has always been our own heart.
Where do we keep religion, if not in our hearts?
What would be the point of practicing any religion if it did not influence us in some way?
Does ice cream cause us to overeat? Does religion cause violence?
To me, the answer to both is no. Millions of people eat ice cream because they enjoy it, but do not over-indulge, so they don't get fat. Some choose to over-indulge and they get fat (like me).
Same with religion.
There is ample evidence (i'll post it if you like) that having consumer products, like ice-creams, abundant in a society causes obesity to rise. How much free-will do you think humans actually have (perhaps that's the crux of the debate)?
My point: if anything, religion may be the excuse for violence that is actually based on other cultural factors.
You may well be right. But isn't a religion that allows itself to be used as an excuse ethically very weak and dubious? For example the First Commandment says "don't kill", but it hasn't stopped Christians killing people over the last 2000 years.
My point: if anything, religion may be the excuse for violence that is actually based on other cultural factors.
You may well be right. But isn't a religion that allows itself to be used as an excuse ethically very weak and dubious? For example the First Commandment says "don't kill", but it hasn't stopped Christians killing people over the last 2000 years.
One common theme in many of my posts over the months of being here is that we have to treat our religion the same as we treat other religions. Just because we believe in Buddhism, doesn't mean that we should treat it differently than other religions as we are discussing it.
You just said: "For example the First Commandment says "don't kill", but it hasn't stopped Christians killing people over the last 2000 years."
It is just as accurate to say: "For example the First Precept says "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from harming living beings", but it hasn't stopped Buddhists killing people over the last 2500 years."
It is just as accurate to say: "For example the First Precept says "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from harming living beings", but it hasn't stopped Buddhists killing people over the last 2500 years."
Fair point, but I wonder how the figures compare? I'm pretty sure that over history the number of people killed by Buddhists is miniscule compared to the numbers killed by adherents of the Abrahamic faiths.
It is just as accurate to say: "For example the First Precept says "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from harming living beings", but it hasn't stopped Buddhists killing people over the last 2500 years."
Fair point, but I wonder how the figures compare? I'm pretty sure that over history the number of people killed by Buddhists is miniscule compared to the numbers killed by adherents of the Abrahamic faiths.
Take a look at the list of wars Buddhist Thailand was involved in (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/seasia/milxsiam.html). Then add in the wars of Burma (after it became a Buddhist nation), Cambodia, etc. Compare the number of Buddhists versus the number of Christians, and I'm not sure that the ratio of deaths is that significant to prove any point.
But isn't a religion that allows itself to be used as an excuse ethically very weak and dubious?
I'm pretty sure that over history the number of people killed by Buddhists is miniscule compared to the numbers killed by adherents of the Abrahamic faiths.
You have attributed a 'self' to religion.
Your second paragraph makes the point of who is actually carrying out the killings.
As How may be suggesting the question is too simplistic to be of much use. Maybe you mean to ask something more specific or at least form some kind of hypothesis. How exactly do you think religion may cause violence?
There is actually abundant evidence that religion does not cause violence. There are countless religious groups across the world that are not violent.
Does religion cause violence? is a perfectly succinct hypothesis to test; the null-hypothesis being religion does not cause violence. You could make it even more so by focusing on different types of violence if you wish.
Wouldn't it be better or more useful to develop a theory for why religion may cause violence?
I don't think there is actually any evidence for or against this hypothesis, as no-one's done the research. Anecdote is not evidence.
Anecdotal evidence? Alright, let's take the entire North American continent, which is rather large, as evidence.
Did Native American's war over religious beliefs? I don't know but I suspect not.
Was the war for independence fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the civil war fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the war against Native Americans fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the Spanish-American war fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in WW1 fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in WW2 fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in Korea fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in Vietnam fought over religious beliefs? No.
Is the United States involvement in the Middle East fought over religious beliefs? No.
I just looked up statistic for annual violent deaths in the United States and found some for 2005:
In 2005, 15,962 Americans in 16 states experienced a violent death, as shown by data gathered by the National Violent Death Reporting System and published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The majority (56.1%) of the violent deaths were suicides, followed by homicides and deaths involving legal intervention (29.6%), deaths of undetermined intent (13.3%), and unintentional firearm deaths (0.7%).
The main factors associated to violent deaths were domestic violence and relationship issues, mental health problems, and drug and alcohol consumption. In about 87% of cases when homicide was followed by the suicide of the perpetrator, a personal crisis took place in the two weeks before the incident. 20% of the suicides were committed by former or current military personal.
Of course all of the above is just anecdotal evidence.
Was the war for independence fought over religious beliefs? No.
...
Was the war against Native Americans fought over religious beliefs? No.
Well, not sure you're correct about the 2 cases above.
Several of the colonies were started based on freedom of religion from the proscribed church in England.
Indians in New Mexico were forcibly converted by the Spaniards, which set up a chain of events that led to a general distrust and armed conflict (e.g., the Pueblo Revolt in the 1600s).
Was the war for independence fought over religious beliefs? No.
...
Was the war against Native Americans fought over religious beliefs? No.
Well, not sure you're correct about the 2 cases above.
Several of the colonies were started based on freedom of religion from the proscribed church in England.
And they achieved that, so why the fight for independence? Can it be said that the war for independence was about religious freedom? I'm no history buff but I do recall something about taxation without representation and so on.
Indians in New Mexico were forcibly converted by the Spaniards, which set up a chain of events that led to a general distrust and armed conflict (e.g., the Pueblo Revolt in the 1600s).
Are you saying that the Spanish had no interest in colonization or controlling that region and they're only interest was converting the heathens?
Was the war for independence fought over religious beliefs? No.
...
Was the war against Native Americans fought over religious beliefs? No.
Well, not sure you're correct about the 2 cases above.
Several of the colonies were started based on freedom of religion from the proscribed church in England.
And they achieved that, so why the fight for independence? Can it be said that the war for independence was about religious freedom? I'm no history buff but I do recall something about taxation without representation and so on.
Indians in New Mexico were forcibly converted by the Spaniards, which set up a chain of events that led to a general distrust and armed conflict (e.g., the Pueblo Revolt in the 1600s).
Are you saying that the Spanish had no interest in colonization or controlling that region and they're only interest was converting the heathens?
Ozen, it is rare that a war is fought for just one simple reason.
@ozen The conflicts that you listed all had a complex set of conditions that were necessary in order to become what it did. I think it is a bit too simplistic to unequivocally say that religion was not one of those factors.
Religion is deeply engrained in the self (or perhaps the self is deeply engrained in religion): the implication of which are religion is interjected into the decisions being made by those people, even those to go to war. While the leaders sending our military off to war may not have religion in their minds (probably more profits: religion of money), many of the people of this country who support those wars do.
My personal opinion on this topic has changed over the years. At one point I had a lot of resentment and anger about religion. I would be the first to say that religion was the cause of so much woe in our world. Now, I see religion as another tool that can be used or misused by humans.
Is religion misused which results in suffering? Yes. Does religion exist without humans? No (human religions anyway). Does religion cause violence? Or is it really humans expressing violence through the outlet/excuse of religion?
I can't/don't know if there would be less war/suffering without religion, but I can/do know that there is less suffering when I make it my goal to be compassionate and do no harm.
Wouldn't it be better or more useful to develop a theory for why religion may cause violence?
I do not understand. Are you saying religion actually does cause violence? I thought you were arguing religion does not cause violence, in which case the question of why religion causes violence would be meaningless. Have i misunderstood your position?
Anecdotal evidence? Alright, let's take the entire North American continent, which is rather large, as evidence.
Did Native American's war over religious beliefs? I don't know but I suspect not.
Was the war for independence fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the civil war fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the war against Native Americans fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the Spanish-American war fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in WW1 fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in WW2 fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in Korea fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in Vietnam fought over religious beliefs? No.
Is the United States involvement in the Middle East fought over religious beliefs? No.
I just looked up statistic for annual violent deaths in the United States and found some for 2005:
In 2005, 15,962 Americans in 16 states experienced a violent death, as shown by data gathered by the National Violent Death Reporting System and published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The majority (56.1%) of the violent deaths were suicides, followed by homicides and deaths involving legal intervention (29.6%), deaths of undetermined intent (13.3%), and unintentional firearm deaths (0.7%).
The main factors associated to violent deaths were domestic violence and relationship issues, mental health problems, and drug and alcohol consumption. In about 87% of cases when homicide was followed by the suicide of the perpetrator, a personal crisis took place in the two weeks before the incident. 20% of the suicides were committed by former or current military personal.
Of course all of the above is just anecdotal evidence.
Which demonstrates precisely why it cannot be submitted as evidence. You have selected those wars and statistics which support your position, while ignoring those wars and statistics which do not. You have also selected only one country, spanning only a small portion of recorded history. The wars you state might be used as evidence if put in a proper scientific framework, maybe a case-control trial since these are all historical events, but in this context simply stand alone as anecdote.
What your anecdote does suggest to me though, particularly since it is used to cite all of North America, yet all wars involved the USA, is that something about America is violent - something which should also be investigated scientifically (not being from America i know little of the continents history, so i assume that other countries in North-America have not been involved in any wars?).
Interesting. Are you suggesting people obese people choose to be so entirely of their free-will?
Might be getting off-topic now, but we seem to disagree as to how much free-will humans generally have.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
There seems to be enough diversity in the scripture of religions to allow people to do whatever they were going to do anyway and then find justification for it within the given religion. So maybe religion isn't a cause but more of a reinforcer.
Was the war for independence fought over religious beliefs? No.
...
Was the war against Native Americans fought over religious beliefs? No.
Well, not sure you're correct about the 2 cases above.
Several of the colonies were started based on freedom of religion from the proscribed church in England.
And they achieved that, so why the fight for independence? Can it be said that the war for independence was about religious freedom? I'm no history buff but I do recall something about taxation without representation and so on.
Indians in New Mexico were forcibly converted by the Spaniards, which set up a chain of events that led to a general distrust and armed conflict (e.g., the Pueblo Revolt in the 1600s).
Are you saying that the Spanish had no interest in colonization or controlling that region and they're only interest was converting the heathens?
Ozen, it is rare that a war is fought for just one simple reason.
The war against the Native Americans and the English could be narrowed down to a society fighting for the abundant resources available in North America, I believe. To even suggest that the millions who suffered and died for that acquisition of resources was because of religious beliefs...
Interesting. Are you suggesting people obese people choose to be so entirely of their free-will?
Might be getting off-topic now, but we seem to disagree as to how much free-will humans generally have.
No, I'm not saying that someone chooses to be fat, per se.
I love pecan praline ice cream, but more than almost any other food I eat, I can see the pounds add on if I eat much of it.
I choose when to eat it, and have cut down on quantities and frequency. So again, I am making the choices.
But I choose to eat the ice cream instead of a red bell pepper. I choose to eat the pizza. I choose to eat the pasta. Etc. Getting obese is the byproduct of my choices.
Which demonstrates precisely why it cannot be submitted as evidence. You have selected those wars and statistics which support your position, while ignoring those wars and statistics which do not. You have also selected only one country, spanning only a small portion of recorded history.
I've selected an entire continent including all known history of it. I haven't ignored any wars or relevant statistics for the know history of North America. If you'd like to list more information please do so.
Not only is North America large in scale, it is know for being a rather violent, and the only 'superpower' today. I would think this would make it a subject for evidence.
The war against the Native Americans and the English could be narrowed down to a society fighting for the abundant resources available in North America, I believe. To even suggest that the millions who suffered and died for that acquisition of resources was because of religious beliefs...
Ozen, if you wish to believe it's all so simplistic as "one-cause wars", then go right ahead.
I've selected an entire continent including all known history of it. I haven't ignored any wars or relevant statistics for the know history of North America. If you'd like to list more information please do so.
Not only is North America large in scale, it is know for being a rather violent, and the only 'superpower' today. I would think this would make it a subject for evidence.
You did? Where did you discuss the wars between various Indian tribes...particularly, for example, the constant invasion of the Indian pubelos by the Plains Indians?
And, maybe you ought to look around a little more. Why not check out some of the violence in Africa throughout its history?
Your last couple of posts are narrowing your views down to anti-Americanism.
The war against the Native Americans and the English could be narrowed down to a society fighting for the abundant resources available in North America, I believe. To even suggest that the millions who suffered and died for that acquisition of resources was because of religious beliefs...
Ozen, if you wish to believe it's all so simplistic as "one-cause wars", then go right ahead.
Say that war is essentially fighting over resources is a generalization. It does not suggest one-cause.
I read in a fictional book once, a part about "what if you created a new religion?" and it went step by step through what commonly has happened with newer religions in the past, and I find it to be largely true. Humans would no doubt still have conflict, religions or not. We are on many levels still simply animals. It is only because we consistently have our needs met that we can even contemplate spirituality. When you are thrown into survival mode it is very hard to hold onto spiritual beliefs over your own survival, because it is built into us. Most conflict is over some innate desire to survive, conflict over resources. But conflict over religion isn't much different. People want to protect what they see as their answers to life. I actually wrote the chapter from the book onto my FB page, if anyone wants to read it I can copy and paste it but it's rather long. It was several pages from a book. I found it interesting though, even from a fiction book.
The war against the Native Americans and the English could be narrowed down to a society fighting for the abundant resources available in North America, I believe. To even suggest that the millions who suffered and died for that acquisition of resources was because of religious beliefs...
Ozen, if you wish to believe it's all so simplistic as "one-cause wars", then go right ahead.
Saying that war is essentially fighting over resources is a generalization. It does not suggest one-cause.
Comments
Let me offer another example. Say you developed a compound and wanted to apply the scientific method to see whether or not it causes violence in people that consume it. You conduct experiments with ten groups of people, giving everyone in the ten groups the compound. If five out of ten groups demonstrate violence can you logically conclude that the compound causes violence?
that's one in 2 people.
I'd say that was reasonable concern...
Does anyone believe that a society or social group without religion would not demonstrate violence? What if there were scarce resources? What if there were a percentage of the population that wanted to dominate the group?
i have heard people talking about personal triumphs going on about "you know, god was there for me, and he helped me through it, and I know god saw me and he was in my corner...."
I have never, but never seen or heard anyone (like a footballer, thy always seem to cross themselves going onto the field) who's lost, say something like,
"well, I prayed to god, but obviously he didn't think I should win, and didn't consider my input to be worth a first...."
god's always there at the finishing line, but it would appear that anything less, he just creeps quietly out of shot.....
Several years ago I read sections of a book (don't now remember the author or title), the basic premise of which was that a natural human function is that people join "clans" (my term...can't remember the term the author used), and that these clans, to some degree or another, come into conflict.
I don't think there's any question about that. We here in this forum have joined a "clan" of people who call themselves Buddhists. I belong to several "clans" -- a senior citizen group, a games group, etc. And always have. And so have you.
In overall society, yes, some clans are based on religion. Some on ethnicity (probably a much stronger clan, historically, than religion. Some on geography. Etc. All of these clans can sometimes come into conflict. It seems to be the conflict aspect that is common, not religion.
And then, whatever the reason, conflict results. And, it seems to me that the excuse may be religion or geographic/culture, or whatever. But it's still the individual's choice that makes him/her join the conflict to one degree or another.
My adopted son was Muslim. When friends of his who were Muslim would come to the house, they would often talk middle eastern politics (a fairly tame version of it), and the topic of Israel and the Jews would come up. And acting as someone who doesn't know, I would say something along the lines of, "So what's the basis of all this conflict between the Jews and Muslims?" A blank look would come over their face. Not one could ever actually tell me what it was all about...other than "tradition"...not one ever actually gave me a religious basis for the conflict.
If you look at the wars of Southeast Asia between what is now Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand through several centuries, none of those wars appeared to be be based on religion, particularly since for most of that time they were all Buddhist (of course, Cambodia/Khmer was Hindu at first). They even attacked each others Buddhist temples, melted down the gold, and took monks into slavery. So they weren't religious wars. The religion seemed to be irrelevant.
My point: if anything, religion may be the excuse for violence that is actually based on other cultural factors.
If you wish to understand killing & war, one need only look at ones own adversarial tendencies. War is the organization of those tendencies, religion one of it's many vehicles but never forget that the real engine of war, has always been our own heart.
my big problem's the guy next door...!"
. I really wish I could blame it all on those other guys. My zafu & history says otherwise though.
I am not sure that I'd say our warmongering was our core but we've made it pretty close to that. As far back as I can get a hold of believable recorded history, humanity has acted adversarially to everything. I think that this adversarial approach is how humanity has persevered and survived. War is just the organized adversarial expression of our daily chaotic adversarial attitudes.
I also think that it is a conditioning that we can stop feeding but make no mistake about it, we are all killers in wait beneath civilizations skin thin veneer.
To not know this makes one dangerous to others.<
I'd be the first to say that we're not a rational species, and I don't need to look any further than myself to see that. I would not say that in our hearts we want to kill, however.
Nobody 'starting' a war says that "well, we just thought it would be a good idea, because we felt like it."
we're not warmongers.
We feel we need to righteously defend.
We are mostly warriors who individually fight which every so often coalesces into the group fighting that we call war.
The four noble truths are my method for trying to let go of adversarial conditioning.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/can-animals-save-us/warrior-baboons-give-peace-a-chance
I don't think there is actually any evidence for or against this hypothesis, as no-one's done the research. Anecdote is not evidence.
How religion causes violence would be an interesting question, but a moot point until it is demonstrated it does cause violence. There is ample evidence (i'll post it if you like) that having consumer products, like ice-creams, abundant in a society causes obesity to rise. How much free-will do you think humans actually have (perhaps that's the crux of the debate)? That's only one amongst many ways to conduct research. The 'best' way to test the hypothesis would be to bring up a number of babies, some with a religion (active group), others without (control group) and then assess them for violence throughout their lives. The more babies in the test, the more accurate the results. I think we can agree such research would be unethical. Realistic methods would be cohort studies, case-control studies and various other epidemiological style studies. Psychology and sociology may be soft sciences, but they're the best we have for answering these types of questions. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Rather, there is more violence in the proximity of various religions. Where do we keep religion, if not in our hearts?
What would be the point of practicing any religion if it did not influence us in some way?
The human makes the decision.
You may well be right. But isn't a religion that allows itself to be used as an excuse ethically very weak and dubious? For example the First Commandment says "don't kill", but it hasn't stopped Christians killing people over the last 2000 years.
You just said: "For example the First Commandment says "don't kill", but it hasn't stopped Christians killing people over the last 2000 years."
It is just as accurate to say: "For example the First Precept says "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from harming living beings", but it hasn't stopped Buddhists killing people over the last 2500 years."
So I guess Buddhism is "weak and dubious"?????
Take a look at the list of wars Buddhist Thailand was involved in (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/seasia/milxsiam.html). Then add in the wars of Burma (after it became a Buddhist nation), Cambodia, etc. Compare the number of Buddhists versus the number of Christians, and I'm not sure that the ratio of deaths is that significant to prove any point.
Your second paragraph makes the point of who is actually carrying out the killings.
Did Native American's war over religious beliefs? I don't know but I suspect not.
Was the war for independence fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the civil war fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the war against Native Americans fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the Spanish-American war fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in WW1 fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in WW2 fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in Korea fought over religious beliefs? No.
Was the United States involvement in Vietnam fought over religious beliefs? No.
Is the United States involvement in the Middle East fought over religious beliefs? No.
I just looked up statistic for annual violent deaths in the United States and found some for 2005: Of course all of the above is just anecdotal evidence.
Several of the colonies were started based on freedom of religion from the proscribed church in England.
Indians in New Mexico were forcibly converted by the Spaniards, which set up a chain of events that led to a general distrust and armed conflict (e.g., the Pueblo Revolt in the 1600s).
Religion is deeply engrained in the self (or perhaps the self is deeply engrained in religion): the implication of which are religion is interjected into the decisions being made by those people, even those to go to war. While the leaders sending our military off to war may not have religion in their minds (probably more profits: religion of money), many of the people of this country who support those wars do.
My personal opinion on this topic has changed over the years. At one point I had a lot of resentment and anger about religion. I would be the first to say that religion was the cause of so much woe in our world. Now, I see religion as another tool that can be used or misused by humans.
Is religion misused which results in suffering? Yes.
Does religion exist without humans? No (human religions anyway).
Does religion cause violence? Or is it really humans expressing violence through the outlet/excuse of religion?
I can't/don't know if there would be less war/suffering without religion, but I can/do know that there is less suffering when I make it my goal to be compassionate and do no harm.
What your anecdote does suggest to me though, particularly since it is used to cite all of North America, yet all wars involved the USA, is that something about America is violent - something which should also be investigated scientifically (not being from America i know little of the continents history, so i assume that other countries in North-America have not been involved in any wars?).
Might be getting off-topic now, but we seem to disagree as to how much free-will humans generally have.
I love pecan praline ice cream, but more than almost any other food I eat, I can see the pounds add on if I eat much of it.
I choose when to eat it, and have cut down on quantities and frequency. So again, I am making the choices.
But I choose to eat the ice cream instead of a red bell pepper. I choose to eat the pizza. I choose to eat the pasta. Etc. Getting obese is the byproduct of my choices.
Not only is North America large in scale, it is know for being a rather violent, and the only 'superpower' today. I would think this would make it a subject for evidence.
And, maybe you ought to look around a little more. Why not check out some of the violence in Africa throughout its history?
Your last couple of posts are narrowing your views down to anti-Americanism.