Throughout all of human history, there has been religious inspired violence. Religion has lead to many wars, terrorist attacks, and genocides. I am not singling out any particular religions, and pretty much all of them have inspired homicides at some point. What is it about religion that makes people kill each other?
People are dicks. Religion is just an excuse.
I woulda said “murderous idiots” instead of “dicks”, but yes. Same point.
Humans are very tribal. We sort ourselves into groups and then start to see other groups as foreign, and not like us.
And indeed, historically, we’ve seen other groups as fodder
Religion is sometimes just an excuse to make such divisions. But it should also be noted, for all their messages of peace, many religious texts explicitly preach a message of them and us, and that “they” are universally evil.
Sent from my Lenovo K50-t3s using Tapatalk
There are a tremendous amount of reasons. One of the most prominent, I think, is that some religious beliefs come with very high stakes. If, for example, you really truly believe that the only way into heaven is to follow religion X, and that anyone who doesn’t will be sent to hell for eternity, there’s no limit to the amount of persecution you can justify.
Think about it; if you REALLY believed, with all your heart and soul, that leaving religion X is the absolute worst thing you can do for yourself, and that convincing other people to leave religion X is the absolute worst thing you can do to other people - way worse than simply murdering them - then the atheist becomes more dangerous than the child molester. After all, the worst thing a child molester can do is fuck your children. The atheist, with a few well chosen words, can damn your child to hell for all eternity.
This is the logical consequence of true belief in certain tenets of certain religions (particularly Christianity and Islam), and it explains an awful lot. It explains why, in America, atheists are regarded as less trustworthy than convicted rapists. It explains why atheist bloggers are being gutted in the street in Bangladesh. It explains why so many Muslims want to kill apostates, it explains the inquisition. When it comes to religiously motivated violence, there isn’t much that it doesn’t explain, or at least doesn’t help to explain.
It has nothing to do with assholes being assholes or whatever. It’s all about what people believe.
Moderator Action
I doubt you’ll find a factual answer to this. Let’s give GD a shot.
Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates.
I vote for this. See Shibboleth.
Chimps are likewise tribal and territorial. I remember one old TV documentary saying that the most vicious fights happened when a group split and former tribe-mates met on disputed ground. I know that doesn’t count as a real cite, but someone might know where to find a real one.
Religion scares the crap out of people, and scared people do crazy things to those that threaten the only thing between them and eternal damnation.
What people mostly fight over is power, wealth, resources. Religion may serve as the marker used to divide people into a them and an us, but there are plenty of examples of non-religious ideologies being used for this purpose. Or other cultural artifacts. Or ethnic divisions which don’t happen to be marked by religion. Or anything, really.
Religion deals with absolutes. It also purports to deal with issues greater than human life. Are those apostates risking peoples immortal souls? Take them out.
Whenever someone wants to bring up the subject of religion as a cause of injustice, one of the first reactionary responses will almost always be a variation of “But it’s not the only reason people use!”, and the implied context of the response is “Please talk about any of those other reasons people use to screw each other over-just don’t talk about religion, o.k.?”
Yes, people kill for other reasons…but I, too, would like to know what it is about religion specifically(NOT exclusively) that drives people to violence.
I don’t think there’s anything specifically about religion that drives people to violence. Your question presumes that there is, but I’m not seeing any evidence or argument for that.
What drives people to violence are their fears and insecurities. The biggest fear we have is the fear of death (or destruction, or extinction) - the death of ourselves, or of the people in whose well-being we are invested (our children, our wider families, our tribes). We seek to avert death by controlling our environment, which we hope to do by accumulating wealth and power. So if you want to look for something exressed in affirmative rather than negative terms about what drives us to violence, its the desire for wealth, power and material resources.
It’s trite, and simplistic, to see, e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a religious conflict. But even a cursory review shows that what is being fought over is not religion, or religious belief, or religious practice; it’s land. As it happens, the two communities in conflict are differentiated by religion, but it doesn’t follow that they are fighting over land because they are differentiated by religion. There are plently of examples of fights over land between communities not differentiated by religion, and we could easily characterise this conflict as a conflict between communities differentiated by, say, language if we chose to.
In fact, come to think of it, conflicts between communities differentiated by language are probably more common than conflicts between communities differentiated by religion. Why does language drive people to kill?
There is a LOT of truth to this. Religion… ANY religion… is a convenient smoke screen to hide dicks inside.
They know that if you call them out as being (or even acting like) dicks, you can and will easily be labelled as a ‘bigot’ even though they are by any independent observation… DICKS!!!
This can be true and it explains why there are so many people willing to act as enablers for and provide cover for… well… Dicks.
Come to think of it, this is a perfect example of what I just said-an attempt to deflect the subject away from religion.
Yeah, but even so, your question presumes that there is indeed something specifically about “religion” that drives people to violence. It presumes that being “religious” is, in and of itself, a cause of violence.
I suggest that the question is too broad and vague to be meaningful. There are many different religions, and each has many different aspects. Even within a single religion, some will be religious in one way, and some will be religious in another way. (For example, one will excel in prayer, another will excel in charity, and others will excel in other areas.) The question presumes some sort of common thread that might or might not actually be present.
I suggest that the OP should select several cases of interest, and figure out what they do - and do not - have in common, beyond simply saying that religious people are driven to kill.
I’m not attempting to deflect the subject away from religion.
You have asked a question (“what it is about religion specifically that drives people to violence?”) and I have given an answer (“nothing”).
And I have gone on to question the assumption implicit in your question, which is that there is something about religion specifically that drives people to violence. My mention of language is not really an attempt to discuss language differences as a cause of violence; it’s an attempt to get you to say why you think religion is different from language (or any other cultural marker of difference) in this regard.
If you want to discuss religion, why not start by saying why you think that there is anything specifically about religion that drives people to violence?
I don’t think it makes them kill, but since religion is practically by definition irrational and encourages irrational thinking, I’m not particularly surprised that some see it as a justification to get irrationally violent. Humans have never really needed much of a push in that direction.
It wouldn’t have to specifically be religion - any widespread belief system that was similarly divorced from reason would do.
To be fair, a comparison to other causes of human violence is in order. To observe that different languages has caused violence doesn’t deny that religious differences has also been a major cause of violence.
Broadening the conversation isn’t exactly “deflecting” it.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that language differences really play much part. Catholics hate Protestants, and Muslims hate Jews, but no one really hates someone else solely for their language. Hatred is usually on a slightly broader foundation, such as cultural differences. Languedoc or Languedoil, there’s no reason for hatred…but they open their eggs at the small ends? Barbarians! To the sword!
Well, I have to point out that language is a cultural difference.
As for language not playing much of a part in conflicts, that’s going to vary from conflict to conflict. Basically, it comes down to how communities define and identify themselves. Serbs and Croats speak two very similar languages/two dialects of the one language, but one uses the Latin alphabet and one the Cyrillic. They also follow different traditions of the one religion (specifically, the Catholic and Orthodox traditions of Christianity). Serbs and Croats can tell one another apart fairly readily by accent, by vocabulary, by the alphabet each uses, by the church each attends, and by a variety of other social and cultural markers, some of which might not be easily discernible to outsiders. So, is conflict between them a religious conflict? Yes, in the sense that religion is one of the markers that distinguishes the two communities. But in that sense the conflict is also a linguistic one. No, in the sense that the issues they fight over have nothing to do with points of doctrine, teaching, religious practice or anything of the kind. And in that sense, the conflict is not a linguistic one either.
I think it might be more meaningful to call a conflict religious if the object of the conflict is to stamp out the enemy’s religious beliefs or values, or to enforce conformity with one’s own religious beliefs or values - the Albigensian crusade, for example, or the wars of religion during the sixteenth century. But the fact that such wars exist doesn’t mean that religion specifically has any particular power to incite violence, since we also have wars whose object is to stamp out non-religious beliefs, or to enforce conformity with non-religious beliefs. And in all these cases - religious and non-religious - the fundamental object is to assert power and control over the enemy.
Grin! Yes, of course. But, well, so is cuisine, and people generally don’t go to war because their neighbors eat icky food.
I think that “culture” in general may have been a blunder on my part; I don’t think people go to war over cultural differences. Wars are generally over something more concrete. Water rights, acreage in general, the right to tax the peasants, and so on.
Religion has led to war, but because of religion’s concrete power over people. If it were all purely abstract – toe-dipping vs. full-immersion baptism – I doubt war would result. But when it comes to the power to compel people to come into your church and not go into that other church, and when this is enforced by guys with firearms, that’s when it gets violent.
In the old high days of Islamic civilization, their cities would have quarters set aside for people of other religions. The Jewish quarter, the Coptic quarter, etc. The different religions got along, because they weren’t actively competing for followers.
But when the bad days came along, and people were forced to convert at sword-point (and this is on both sides: Islamic forced conversion in Egypt and Christian forced conversion in Spain,) that was violence, with a specific practical purpose and goal.
Very true: that exercise of power is what makes a war. Religions can co-exist perfectly peacefully. Trouble comes in when one religion tells another, “No, you’re not allowed to do X.”