Is Religion The Source Of Most Conflicts?

[LazyGun]

We have had questions and debates on this issue before on AB. I thought it might be worth revisiting given a recent article in the Guardian. Some interesting views expressed, from writers with a range of personal beliefs. All of whom are contributors to a forthcoming book "For Gods Sake", which sounds like it might be worth a read.

Have a read, see what you think :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/02/religion-wars-conflict

Interesting comment from one of the contributors;

"terrorism occurs when you combine a sense of military and economic inferiority with a sense of moral superiority. Religion is very good at conferring a sense of moral superiority on its followers."

[jim360]

Thanks for that stat though I was aware of it already. Still, the people who do most to advance human development haven't been that hindered. I don't think you can demonstrate it either way -- arguably what did the most to hinder things was the Roman Empire...

[emmie]

the shard, ugliness personified, one man's dream, i absolutely hate it

[naomi24]

Jim, //Still, the people who do most to advance human development haven't been that hindered. //

I'm confused. They haven't been 'THAT hindered'? You appear to saying that human progress hasn't been hindered - and in the next breath you talk about the scale to which it has been hindered, so which is it? Has it been hindered, or hasn't it?

Got to go now. Be back later.

[emmie]

i believe it has been hindered, and so has society by and large by the feudal system... i still like Ely Cathedral though..

[jim360]

Well, maybe I'm confused as usual!

To try and clarify: I don't know how much or how little human progress has been hindered by religion. But although it's only gut instinct I do feel it probably isn't a significant amount of hindrance. If I said earlier that it was none at all, or implied that, then I didn't mean that and apologise for giving that impression.

[emmie]

well it's hindered women's rights, the condemnation when one had a child out of wedlock, not Christian, throw her out, workhouse because you are poor, not particularly charitable, Catholic church stance on abortion, birth control, paedophile priests, not to mention the Qu'ran stance on women and their rights. it has hindered people by and large, but sad to say it's often women who have borne the brunt.. and it's still doing it, be it Islam, Christianity, you name it.

[jim360]

Well then it's a question of what you mean by human progress. I'm thinking mainly of Science and Culture -- which is probably, to be honest, very narrow-minded of me.

In terms of equality it's much clearer -- there are passages in the Bible (and probably also the Koran) that seem to imply that women are somehow inferior. I challenged one Christian about this and got little more than "I don't know." I don't quite understand why this doesn't trouble her.

But anyway I was meaning Scientific hindrance and cultural hindrance.

[emmie]

and in the sciences, many scientists, explorers, great thinkers were often hampered by those controlling the purse strings, in governments, church, and indeed nobility..

[emmie]

the churches have been full of superstitions and ignorance for as long as they have existed, think of burning witches at the stake, it really has only been in more recent times, with the likes of Darwin coming to the fore that things have begun to change. Christian religions in Britain had been all powerful, and now that is somewhat on the wane, but Islam is now taking that place...

[naomi24]

Jim, passages in the Bible and the Koran don’t simply imply that women are inferior – they leave the reader in no doubt of it. Perhaps your Christian friend doesn’t know the bible – nothing unusual in that. Many people who claim to be Christians don’t read it – and since priests rarely include the more unsavoury bits in their sermons, their audiences remain in ignorance.

[jim360]

The thing is that she does know the Bible as well - far better than I do. Which is why I'm so puzzled by how little it seems to concern her.

[naomi24]

In that case, I can only assume she doesn't think.

[jim360]

Regardless of what I may think about her views on this, she is as close as family and frankly that's a very rude thing to say. Especially as you don't know her.

[naomi24]

Why rude? You have no explanation for her lack of concern. Therefore, if, as you say, she knows the bible well and yet fails to recognise the injustice of the misogyny it contains, the logical conclusion has to be that she doesn't think about what she's reading.

[jim360]

Fair enough, so long as I'm allowed to say that you don't think about things when (and if) you fail to recognise the fallacy of your position.

[naomi24]

If you want me to answer that, you'll need to give me an example.

[jim360]

It's happened often enough in Scientific discussions (I'm thinking particularly of MMR), although I'm sure you wouldn't agree with me for saying so -- which is really my point. It seems to me to be bad etiquette in a debate to insult the intelligence of the other person, at least openly. Whether or not they actually are thick.

[naomi24]

Jim, I didn't say she was thick - I said I assume she doesn't think. For the umpteenth time stop putting words into my mouth.

As for MMR, I have an opinion that doesn't agree with yours, and until you can offer absolute proof that I am clinging to a fallacy, which currently you can't, may I suggest you shelve that subject because further discussion is pointless.

[jim360]

I don't really see the difference between "not thinking" and "thick", and anyway to flog a dead horse, we have offered a multitude of evidence that you're just ignoring, but never mind...

[jim360]

"We" as in me, Lazygun, and the medical community in general. "Never mind..." as in I think you don't think about this nearly as well as you think you do, and "good night" as in good night.