Does religion cause most conflict in the world?

[Lamb]

Do you think it's religion that causes the most conflict in the world? Or is it something else?

 

[Josiah]

No.

I think ego and sin cause most of the conflict in the world. But I do think that at times, egotistical persons know that religion can be a powerful force - and learn how to abuse that for their own evil purposes.

 

[tango]

Do you think it's religion that causes the most conflict in the world? Or is it something else?

I guess it depends on how you define "religion"

I like the meme that says religion is a man in church thinking about fishing, while spirituality is a man out fishing thinking about God. On that basis, maybe religion is the cause of a lot of conflict.

One thing I always wondered about is that Jesus said we should love our enemies, I believe the Qu'ran says "truly Allah loveth not the aggressor", yet Christians and Muslims ended up fighting such bloody battles during the Crusades.

I think Josiah makes a good point that much of the problem is twisted and subverted religion, rather than true religion.

 

[psalms 91]

religion versus relationship, I do believe that religion does cause a lot of problems

 

[Stravinsk]

Do you think it's religion that causes the most conflict in the world? Or is it something else?

If we could only find that one major source of conflict and then eliminate it...

Broadly, no - religion itself is not the major cause of conflict in the world. It is often used to divide people and set up groups of individuals against other groups of individuals by 3rd parties who seek to manipulate the religious passions and differing of beliefs of people to achieve their own goals and agendas.

Most of the major conflicts of the world are not based in opposing religious beliefs, they are based in the economics of exploitation and domination. For example, as a kid I was taught that America was fighting in Vietnam to "stop the threat of communism". Obviously not a religious reason - but one based in fear nonetheless, that the political system of a small country very far away could have such a great influence and spread it's ideology far and wide - so the world had to fight to keep "freedom" alive.
It was rubbish. The real reason for fighting in Vietnam was to funnel a great fortune into the military industrial complex, to increase the US's military might, indebt it to world bankers and make a few individuals very very rich. The justification - The Gulf of Tonkin incident is now admitted and revealed to be a complete fabrication.

But the affections of those who love "democracy" (oh how they forget the US was founded as a Republic, not a democracy) work the same for religous affections.
While it is true that some of the teachings of some religions are (in my view at least), distasteful to put it mildly (some of Islam's teachings are a good example), and do cause and contribute to some problems, I do not think they are the root of major conflicts around the world.

Mostly, it is economics, greed, and exploitation.

I would say though, that a certain aspect of many religions (including Christianity to some degree) do contribute.

That aspect is non evidence based faith, or faith in stories that do not jive with history or even with themselves, and some of the calls to action that are derived from them. That, and the aforementioned method of divide and conquer based on religious or political labels.

 

[psalms 91]

I agree it is greed, ego, predjudice

 

[visionary]

Here is the story of one man's conversion using the Koran.

 

[NewCreation435]

It is the sin of pride which causes most conflict.

 

[psalms 91]

I agree

 

[MarkFL]

I've heard some within the atheist community state that one of the evils of religion is that the fervor it can generate has led to most wars in our history. I'm not enough of a historian to really say one way or the other with any authority, but I will agree that the subversion of some religions can be a factor in war...but just one of many factors. Does religion hold a monopoly on fervor?

I don't see religion being a factor in the majority of wars, and can we really count the subversion of religion as religion itself? Can we honestly blame a religion if a group of people take that religion and twist it in such a way as to result in an armed conflict?

Can we truthfully claim that if religion had never existed that the history of humanity would be one bit more peaceful, much less a great deal more peaceful? I don't think we can.

 

[Josiah]

I've heard some within the atheist community state that one of the evils of religion is that the fervor it can generate has led to most wars in our history. I'm not enough of a historian to really say one way or the other with any authority, but I will agree that the subversion of some religions can be a factor in war...but just one of many factors. Does religion hold a monopoly on fervor?

I don't see religion being a factor in the majority of wars, and can we really count the subversion of religion as religion itself? Can we honestly blame a religion if a group of people take that religion and twist it in such a way as to result in an armed conflict?

Can we truthfully claim that if religion had never existed that the history of humanity would be one bit more peaceful, much less a great deal more peaceful? I don't think we can.

I posted above, "I think ego and sin cause most of the conflict in the world. But I do think that at times, egotistical persons know that religion can be a powerful force - and learn how to abuse that for their own evil purposes."

I would not deny that fanaticism, fundamentalism of ALL types (cultural, philosophical, ethnic/racial, national, political, etc.) are A cause.... and yes religious fanaticism/fundamentalism can be in that group. But I think far more often, evil and power-needing people skillfully USE (abuse) those things, knowing how they can motivate the masses to do what perhaps they would not do otherwise.


Just my half cent, however. I'm not a historian.


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Steven Weinberg is quoted as having said:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I don't agree with that at all...I would say it is the "group mentality" that can get people to do things that they would not do if acting alone. Sure, religion (or its subversion) can be used to create this group mentality by crafty hands, but then so can nationalism or even within the fanbase of a sports team. By the right speaker, people can be whipped into a frenzy over just about anything.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Bookish religion can be unhelpful and unhealthy for one's morals and one's humanity towards others. A chap I know on IRC, a Calvinist, asserts that Jesus engages in genocide. His religion is - without doubt - not as harsh as his choice of words but the bookishness of it appears to give license to expressions such as "Jesus engages in genocide".

 

[visionary]

If Muslim faith were no longer, that means no extremism of ISIS and the like jihads, how much conflict is left? Communism threats of Russia and North Korea.

 

[psalms 91]

There are a lotr of threats for the US

 

[Ruth]

Some use extreme fundamentalist ideas in religion for war like "Jihad" which means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Muslims[6] and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Many observers—both Muslim[7] and non-Muslim[8]—as well as the Dictionary of Islam,[3] talk of jihad having two meanings: an inner spiritual struggle (the "greater jihad"), and an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam (the "lesser jihad")[3][9] which may take a violent or non-violent form.[1][10] Jihad is often translated as "Holy War",[11][12][13] although this term is controversial.[14][15] According to orientalist Bernard Lewis, "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists", and specialists in the hadith "understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[16] Javed Ahmad Ghamidi states that there is consensus among Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrongdoers.[17]

It was generally supposed that the order for a general war could only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which has been vacant since 1923)—such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states—always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad. There has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate. Some proclaimed jihad by claiming themselves as mahdi, e.g. the Sudanese Mahommed Ahmad in 1882.[18] In classical Islam, the military form of jihad was also regulated to protect civilians.[19][20][21]

Jihad is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[22] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, jihad is one of the ten Practices of the Religion.[23]

In Modern Standard Arabic, the term jihad is used for a struggle for causes, both religious and secular. The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic defines the term as "fight, battle; jihad, holy war (against the infidels, as a religious duty)".[24] Nonetheless, it is usually used in the religious sense and its beginnings are traced back to the Qur'an and words and actions of Muhammad.[25][26][page needed] In the Qur'an and in later Muslim usage, jihad is commonly followed by the expression fi sabil illah, "in the path of God."[27] Muhammad Abdel-Haleem states that it indicates "the way of truth and justice, including all the teachings it gives on the justifications and the conditions for the conduct of war and peace."[28] It is sometimes used without religious connotation, with a meaning similar to the English word "crusade" (as in "a crusade against drugs").[29]

That being said most Muslims are not extremists but there are those who are who believe in going to the extreme with violence against those who are not like them.

 

[Ackbach]

For sheer body count, it's hard to beat Communism/Marxism: in the hundreds of millions of people dead. Nothing else, so far as I know, even comes close.

 

[visionary]

At the heart of it all, is the evil within exposes and reveals evil to be violent and comes in all shapes, sizes and colors often hidden behind the cloak of some religion, politics, or idealism by violence.