Is religion causing wars?

[Lord X]

First off I have to say I agree with Prince Toad; religion definitely causes wars. However, others appear to be arguing that since human faults (greed, wickedness, corruption, etc...) are at the base of the problem, they should be considered to be the true cause of war and not religion itself. True, human faults cause war, but they do so indirectly and as the most fundamental causes. Human faults cause religion to cause war. But it cannot be denied that religion itself is still a cause of war. In order to close this debate completely, we'd need for someone to posit a very good definition of "cause."

Originally Posted by Psytronic

Because the underlying concept of religion is to spread wisdom and acceptance...

Are you serious? First off, it depends entirely on the religion. Secondly, most major religions either teach the exact opposite or have loads of the opposite buried within their sacred tomes and/or dogma (especially the older religions). Religion is rarely about acceptance...

Originally Posted by Psytronic

Do you honestly think hostility exists merely because of different religious practices...

I absolutely and emphatically do. The problem is that religion is one of the most dangerous things that can possibly exist. It is a set of ideas that claims to be more important and more true than anything else in the universe, a set that claims to supercede all others ideas. Regardless of how good the religion appears to be up front, its self declared supremacy is a horrible and misguided danger. Even more dangerous is when two people have religions that disagree, even if only on trivial matters. Each person takes his religion as the "right" one. Due to the all-importance of their beliefs, the discrepancy cannot be overlooked but for only so long. Hostility is born.

Originally Posted by CaptHayfever

And yes, greed is derived from stupidity.

I can't imagine how greed comes from being dumb? I'm going to have to agree with Prince Toad on this one too. From your posts it seems like you're just describing anything and everything that you deem wrong or bad as "stupid." I would be very interested in hearing how you define "stupidity" since your use of it appears to be so broad.

[Prince Toad]

I'm pretty sure Buddhism preaches tolerance. Also moderation. I think the world would be a better place if we were all Buddhists.

But for the most part, yeah, you're dead on about the supremacy thing. In order to truly believe in any major religion aside from Buddhism, you have to believe that all others are, at some level, incorrect, because of their views on divinity, certain practices, specific beliefs, etc. Case in point: Jesuit missionaries, people so convinced of their religious beliefs that they felt it their duty to spread their faith across the world.

Then again, now that I think about it, even some Buddhists must think that non-Buddhists are living their lives wrong. ...I'm too tired to make a very coherent post, and anyway he was pretty much agreeing with me, so... I'm done.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

Religion can cause war. But most of the time religion only polishes the real cause of war.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

I'm pretty sure Buddhism preaches tolerance. Also moderation. I think the world would be a better place if we were all Buddhists.

Not sure about Buddhism itself, but the prevailing attitute among Eastern belief is karma: what you give to reality, you get from reality. If an Eastern believer sees you bleeding on the road, she'll pass you by, because she believes you must have done something to deserve your pain, and helping you would ruin the balance between your action and reality's reaction. I'd rather people help and hurt each other than ignore each other.

[Prince Toad]

^^Wow, a rational thought from PZoH. Good for you. Have a cookie.

^Is that based in fact, or just wild conjecture? I think Easterners have just as much basic human sympathy as we do. Malik?

[Wyborn]

False logic (and comes across as rather racist).

Helping a person in need would by nature accrue good karma, so assuming that every "Easterner" is still a callous dick who just watches out for themselves and has general contempt for other people's states of beings, they would help out simply to help themselves.

And there's no such thing as instant karma. To my understanding, it's most prevalent in religions that stress reincarnation, and your accrued karma in a given life determines the position you are born into in a future life (ex.: a person in a lower-class family who is good might be born into an upper-class family).

[CaptHayfever]

And there's no such thing as instant karma.

But don't we all shine on like the moon and the stars and the sun?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

False logic (and comes across as rather racist).

I'm questioning a belief, not a race. (Not all Eastern-thinkers are actually Eastern, as Asian thought is making its way into Western pop culture, and a lot of white people think they're cool when they say they're Buddhists.) The believers themselves are compassionate because compassion is human instinct. But their belief (like every other belief) might alienate a part of humanity.

However, apparently I'm wrong about karma. Nevermind. Carry on.

[Bomby]

^Refusing to help a hurt person would generate negative karma.

Just saw this a few minutes ago and it reminded me of this topic.

Yes, I know he's just an actor and the fact that he shares the same religion as I (although different sect) might be partially why I agree with this, but he makes a lot of good points.

[El Barto]

Perhaps ethnocentric would be better a way of saying it? Whatever you call the need to prove the inherent superiority of your religion.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

My religion has flaws.

[Alph]

Originally Posted by Lord X

I absolutely and emphatically do. The problem is that religion is one of the most dangerous things that can possibly exist. It is a set of ideas that claims to be more important and more true than anything else in the universe, a set that claims to supercede all others ideas. Regardless of how good the religion appears to be up front, its self declared supremacy is a horrible and misguided danger. Even more dangerous is when two people have religions that disagree, even if only on trivial matters. Each person takes his religion as the "right" one. Due to the all-importance of their beliefs, the discrepancy cannot be overlooked but for only so long. Hostility is born.

This, I think, is a really important point that many people don't seem to notice. A major problem with religion lies in it's tendency to place more importance on the belief in the religion than anything else. This causes the hostility between differing religions, and it causes a general lack of tolerance to form; even though many religions ironically teach that you should be tolerant towards other people's "wrong" beliefs, which ignores the fact that believing other beliefs to be necessarily wrong is a product of intolerance in the first place. It also allows these people to be easily manipulated to do extreme things, since the convictions are so strong.

So the question isn't "does religion cause wars?". The real question is "does having people grouped together in an organized religion with an overly strong sense of religious identity cause wars?"

And the answer is yes.


Take this example:

Two groups of people, for whatever reason, have thus far developed independantly, but now end up meeting eachother.

Group 1 believes that a particular "sacred coin" is the most important thing in the universe, more important than anything in the world, even their lives and the lives of others.

Group 2 believes that the coin is anything BUT sacred, and that not believing it to be such is the most important thing in the world, even more so than the lives of every human being.

Despite the fact that they have no actual reason to dislike eachother, and despite the fact that their religion teaches them to be compassionate, a resentment still forms between the two groups because of the strength of their convictions. Since each group's religion teaches that the other religion is necessarily wrong and inferior, a lack of tolerance is inherantly present.

Tension builds up because of opposing (trivial) convictions, and the two eventually make war when some (trivial) incompatibility between the two arises.

What caused the war? It wasn't the trivial imcompatability...because even non-trivial incompatibities can be worked out through compromise, as long as overly strong convictions aren't involved. No, it WAS the overly strong convictions, brought forth by religion, that caused the war.



Organized religion isn't the only source of overly strong convictions, but it is one of the biggest sources. And the ones it forms are almost always trivial.