You often hear, "most wars are caused by religion". Well, turns
out to be a myth. Philip and Axelrod*s three-volume Encyclopedia
of Wars, chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over
the course of human history. Out of those wars, the authors
categorize 123 as being religious in nature, 6.98 percent of all
wars.
7% isn't even close to 100%. I remember George Carlin saying
it in his comedy routine. I believed it. I've heard teachers say
it. I've heard a lot of people say it. But, like George
Washington and the cherry tree, some things we hear about turn
out to be wrong. === You're free to hold onto antiquated beliefs
if you like. But Jonathon, it's an encyclopedia of wars.
Scholarship. Highly tauted. Could it all be a lie? Sure it can.
But it's better than an oft-repeated baseless assertion that
"sounds nice" but doesn't appear to be correct such as "most
religions are caused by war". === I can't go through time to
witness these wars first hand. I have to base my trust on some
authority. The encyclopedia of wars chronicles 1500+ wars in
short detail. The statistic comes from that source, based on
their research. Seems legit to me. Might not be. But they make a
stronger case than the same ol' thing that ppl have been saying
since the 19th century about religion + war... an idea that
never had much backing at all in the first place. == You might
have to consider that everything you believe about this could
simply be wrong. It's quite possible you know. You still have
other great arguments you can make regarding religion and how
bad it is. Just let this one go. == How is that choosing
ignorance? Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit pre-conceived
notions is ignorance. But studying it to decide is not
ignorance. == So, do you believe we create our histories as we
along only to support agendas that support our needs in the
present moment? == Some but not entirely. That's another myth.
There's many overlapping cultures, Jonathon and overlapping
historical accounts. There's also different perspectives such as
archeology with its own narratives. So, the "only the winners
write the history" is true in a limited nationalistic sense, but
as more and more information comes in and is available, the
better our opportunity for better historical accounts come into
play --- *if* the historians do their job properly and of
course, not all do, but I believe many earnestly try. ==
The comforting lie that I keep hearing seems to be,
"Most wars are caused by religion"
when they don't appear to be.
*
You can call it historical revisionism if you like but here's
http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Wars-Volume-Library-History/dp/0816028516
1500+ pages of evidence with which to consider the slimmest,
minutest possibility that maybe... just maybe.. you'll be better
off relying on OTHER arguments as to "why religion is bad for
people", if that is what you wish to do, than this one.
==
*That's what historians attempt to do: tease apart the spaghetti
mess of history to come up with more-or-less accurate narratives
that are "least biased" as they're capable of doing. They try.*I
don't know the politics here much. I know they're pro small
business which is nice for me. There is no state taxes, which I
also appreciate. They pretty much leave me alone. I barely know
there's a government here.*Then again, I barely knew there was
one in New Jersey, except there were always taxes on things.
Beyond that? Neither state's governments seemed to affect my
life in too many ways that mattered much to me. Maybe to others.
==
*I'm all for a secular government. But your criteria doesn't do
much for assisting determination of causation in historical
record.
==
I was only speaking of the single often repeated bit of
mythology:"Most wars are caused by religion".It's a modern day
myth. It's repeated a lot. It appears to be wrong.The rest of
it? I'm not referring to. Just this one thing.
==
*Yeah - I think it's best to live by a University with a decent
history department to get access to it... although of course
there's likely a PDF floating around somewhere, as there always
is... not that I'm recommending (or not) such activities that I
may or may not participate in.As far as politics goes, it's not
generally my thing. I have other battles I like to fight;
accuracy in Science is a big one for me (I like a self-conscious
Science) but there's other things I also find important to fight
about. But there's enough other ppl worried about such things
about whether or not we're becoming a theocracy or not that I
don't have to think about it.The moment I read that we're really
an oligarchy I just kinda threw my hands up. I suspected it was
true but then I saw the numbers and I was like, "ok, yeah,
figures".
==
*Common for you and me and George Carlin (where I got my "Most
war is caused by religions" idea from - I believed it was true)
but Axelrod is a war historian. It's his job to at least TRY to
be as accurate as possible.
==
*Of course he *could* be wrong. Being an expert doesn't prove
anything in itself. But its an opinion that carries more weight
than my favorite 80s comedian.
==
*They would, although to be honest, there's probably far better
arguments than a mythological religion-war connection that
really doesn't seem to be there much at all.Hanging onto it,
even in a weakened form, would seem to weaken a case rather than
strengthen.To me, it'd be better for those who wish to make
their cases, to stick with the strong points.
==
*Point two? That's a harder case to make.To me, it seems better
to abandon a war/religion connection and use other points that
show religion-is-bad as the "primacy of consciousness" seems a
little weaker than "Most war is caused by religion" was.But
that's just my opinion. I suppose it depends on the audience. I
just try to figure out likely-enough truths and go with them;
even here, I'm sharing because I was surprised (as it went
against what I'd always heard but never questioned) and it's an
interesting topic.
=
*You asked for number of deaths. "How many war deaths".I'm sure
it's possible to go with "percent of population" and population
densities and such as well, but NOW you're asking different
questions that are more specific.The logic checked out to the
question you asked. But you can go deeper if you by asking
DIFFERENT questions like these.
==
*You can hang on to it if you like - you can find assertions of
causation for any reason if you ask around enough. Some people
these days blame the environment for the cause of most war. Same
idea.Which narrative do you pick? Your choice of course.But an
"encyclopedia of wars" that's published as factual materials for
schools from elementary through University, by the "Facts on
File" people.... _does_ lead it some credibility, as
the[1]
http://www.infobasepublishing.com*Infoplease people are
competing with OTHER publishers of Fact Information such as
Oxford and Cambridge and the like.Go with Wikipedia if you like
and a smattering of historians but it's a strong commitment to
publish something as "Facts" if one is just pushing a
statistical agenda.But carry on believing as you wish Harry.
==
*He may. But*[2]
http://www.infobasepublishing.comis the
publisher - all they publish is Facts.... and supply millions of
materials for education from 5 years old through University and
Public libraries."Facts On File is an award-winning publisher of
print, eBooks, and online reference materials for the school and
library market. We specialize in core subject areas, such as
history, science, literature, geography, health, and more. Our
print titles are authoritative references geared toward the high
school, academic, and public library markets. Our highly
regarded, curriculum-based online products include reference and
news service databases, eLearning Modules, and streaming video.
Facts On File has nearly 70 years of service to librarians
backing our editorial content and decisions."So, you'll have an
uphill battle to climb if you wish to battle facts.
==
* As a kid, my minister (Methodist) said it during a sermon.
George Carlin said it in his comedy. My teachers said it. Who
questioned it?I'm glad to get better information now.
==
*hehe the 2nd try was better - thank you smile emoticon I'm just
trying my best here. I don't like misrepresentations of history
- I mean, history is hard enough as it is to get straight and
portrayals of history to promote points of view are things I
rally against 'cause I like history, the good, the bad, the
ugly, the complicated, the messy, the conflicting stories.and...
I usually pick my battles with intelligent people because if
you're gonna get 98% right about things, might as well shoot for
99-100% if you can smile emoticon
=
*Oh of course and absolutely 100% agreed.But.... ... I don't see
an Indian Encyclopedia of Wars volume out there to compete with
it. So... ...I have to go with the "best in class" that's
available.It's thorough, respected in its field, strong source
material that's well researched.I'd LOVE to see the same
material produced from multiple perspectives: Someday, I'd hope
to see every culture produce their own world histories and have
them side-by-side for comparison.But... when it comes to
academically accepted war categorization... this is the best
"everything" book available at the moment that I'm aware of.I
hope you can find another perspective that's equally thorough
for proper comparison.
==
*we're talking about two different things here. The history of
all wars across the span of measures human history vs the past
60 yrs. different results are reasonable. I said nothing of
flawlessness. But it's published by the Facts on File ppl. These
ARE considered factual. Also I suspect you could look at the
same source material and might find out that it corroborates
with the increases you mention from other authors in this small
time slice. I'm not down playing its significance just that
we're measuring different things here.
==
In short Brett *i* have no defensive bias to admit here. If you
can see one I'm unaware of please tell me.
==
*Indeed. The benefit of a proper scientific research allows for
a hypothesis such as "religion causes war" with the humility to
compel one to report novel results unanticipated at the
outset.Of course, reality's different even within the Sciences;
studies that merely confirm bias by "going through the motions"
of precision work without striving for accurate results (thanks
to confirmation bias, which is all too human) happens frequently
enough, but in principle, scientific skepticism is sound
enough.So, I don't expect everyone to follow the
methodology.Still, I find "self-skepticism" a healthy-mode of
operation. For me, I don't like hanging onto ideas that are
offbase or leaning in the wrong direction. I prefer being "more
correct" when possible, although "all correct" may itself be
unlikely. Still, a worthy goal in itself I think smile emoticon
==
*for an example of a systematic, scientific evaluation of
causation in International War and
Conflict.[3]
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/note13.htmNow in this
case, the author is attempting the make the study of
International War and Conflict mathematical, logical, applying
best-of-class tools, for almost a "physics of war" point of
view.I looked for religion-as-cause. In this treatment, couldn't
find it, although it's possible it may be hiding under a broader
category somehow if you search enough through the concepts.I'm
not showing this as a proof that the OP is correct in a 100%
fashion about its estimation of 7%.Rather, I'm showing that
there is *great difficulty* and much rigor in attempting to
determine causation and simplistic notions such as "People
blindly following [x] about [y] vs [y] following about [x]=
[war]" are ultimately ridiculous notions to try to hang onto.
==
Here is a nice treatment of the
[4]
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/dpf.chap35.htm relationship
between humanity and nature from various world perspectives,
including our own biases.
==
* Indeed. I like this example because it's from an older text -
seems to be from about 40 years ago, yet reading through it, it
sounds like something that belongs in a physics textbook. I like
the rigor and from what I can recall about trends-in-scholarship
over time, this kind of analytical perspective was extremely
popular for the time.A lot has shifted since then and I'm not
saying that this approach is the best/worst/better/not-as-good
-- I can't put it on that kind of scale. I see the benefits of
post-modernist analysis as well, just as I do reading
nationalistic accounts.Foucault was definitely on-the-mark when
he talks about the overlapping grid-view of historical
influencing of our very studies and the difficulties of the
covering-up of some areas while illuminating other areas.....or,
in short, he was "on-the-mark" in showing the DIFFICULTY of even
BEING "on-the-mark" smile emoticonBut the main thing is to me:
scholarship is not simple. In cases like War, getting things
right can be crucial, for it's not merely a study of history for
a school class, but it's discovering necessary patterns to help
nations PREDICT future behaviors and help in future strategies
that can save lives, increase peace, reduce war.This naive
belief that has arisen over time that "a better tomorrow will be
caused by removal of religion today" is, to me, shallow
silliness. Brett is a very smart guy whose opinions I highly
respect yet this is precisely the reason why I'm taking the time
to say all that I'm saying:I'd like to be called out on it when
I'm holding onto a silly notion and I assume other intelligent
people *also* appreciate it ultimately, even if the process of
getting there can sometimes take a while.
==
* ultimately don't expect your agreement. I'm not looking to
"win a debate" here. It's ultimately an exercise in critical
thinking and self-analysis. Confirmation bias is VERY difficult
to recognize - it can be nearly impossible once one has adopted
a worldview as their own - yet that's why I'm typing all of
these words.
==
*Sean Carroll... didn't he make a revision of the "Big Bounce"
idea? [that the Universe never quite makes it to zero but
instead of just bounces big and small, but I think he utilizes
anti-time rather heavily rather than the prior alternations of
bang/crunch/bang/crunch based on ideal gas notions?]Well,
regardless - if if I don't agree all of his results (including
his views on religion, which I think are a little simplistic)
nevertheless, the basic idea of the importance of being
skeptical of one's self and one's ideas *is* a very important
one. It's especially important in his field because they're
dealing with the most fictional and speculative side of the
sciences but it's equally true of any of the sciences, or of
good scholarship in general.
==
*Ah that's right. I'm a few years rusty [I've had an on and off
obsession with theoretical physics for a long time... and an
ongoing fascination with the nature of Time, both in physics and
in other fields] and had pegged him in the wrong slot.I'll have
to give him another listen. I've gotten so Dawkins and
Hitchens'd out through the years that I rarely can give any of
them much of a listen anymore. I thought Sam Harris had
potential but, alas, no. Same kinds of errors.If you have a good
example of his work (video/writing) handy regarding atheism,
I'll give it a look.
==
*Thank you. I'll give it a listen and present my analysis at
some point today. I like looking for hidden bias and
highlighting, not to falsify (true/false 'fact' criteria is
sometimes too simple for complicated issues - even the flip/flop
states within a computer are ripe with issues because there *is*
an analog state of "inbetween" - physical systems always have
physical problems as do human reasoning systems].I discover
their biases, apply what I've learned to my own and hopefully
get stronger in my quest for "least biased as possible"
viewpoint. It's actually quite fun.
==
* I'm two minutes in and a few comments. Usually someone's
biases are clear early and their arguments follow from their
biases. He's very good n that he is clear, honest and forthright
about WHAT he's doing and WHY he's taking that route. He's aware
he's taking a simple route, apologizing for it, and then says
he's going to take it anyway.So, kudos for the honesty and
self-awareness.Misleadings: God is not a good theory. The title
contains a few issues that he explains in these first two
minutes:He sees it as ok to assume that the idea of God can be
treated scientifically as he believes the idea of God is close
enough across the board in most religions (analogous enough)
that it can be treated the same everywhere.I'm glad he
mentioned, "There's this other idea that the God concept is
powerful precisely -because- it can't be defned in this way" and
mentioned that he won't be taking that route.Honesty. I admire
that.He's apologetic in his Apologetics smile emoticon It's a
good approach.He also takes "theory" and uses it neither in the
Scientific sense of theory _nor_ does he use it in a
common-usage way, but he makes up his OWN definition of
Theory:an idea that can be proven True or False.It's not an
unreasonable approach though but again, he's clear about the
limitations he's presenting.A few seconds more into it, he's
clear that he's only going to be talking about a very _specific_
view of God, and likely not the audience's FAVORITE version of
God.Again, applauding the forthrightness. He's aware he's going
to be taking on a journey showing what's likely the worst
examples of a God idea and proving it false.. which, to be
honest, isn't likely all that difficult to do. Even growing up
in the Methodist church, we learned about some ideas about God
that were very misleading and to avoid them ourselves and I
_suspect_ he'll be characterising as false the same views of God
I was taught were misleading approaches.Nevertheless, just 3
minutes into it now, he's exposing his bias nakedly and clearly
and apologizing for it, without mocking those who do not agree
with his bias. Bravo and I believe he is taking the best
approach here.I'll let you know if I have further thoughts but
as bias was my main concern rather than true/false, he gets high
marks on form and delivery, even if I do not agree with his
premises. Thank you for showing him to me - I'll watch more.
like emoticon
== I skipped around a bit because within just a few words I
could see what his arguments were likely to be for some of it.
Stopped at his opinion the finely-tuned argument - and I'm very
grateful he takes the position he does: a very reasonable
position that successfully (to me) discusses both Christian
apologists and multiverse apologists who alike argue the
"fine-tunedness" of everything either as proof of multiverse or
proof of God - and whichever one is trying to prove, neither one
does so successfully.In his conclusions, however, he makes a
strange assumption (to me), that if Scripture was written by God
he says something like, "I would imagine that such a God would
have told us ..." and then describes desirable modern values...
and because those values are NOT in Scriptures, this leads to a
falsification of the God theory.I find that to be very strange
for a number of reasons.Religions based _solely_ upon
scripture-alone are actually a rather modern concept in the
history of religions - this idea that you can take a text and
create a system. it seems, rather that the systems and the texts
emerged hand-in-hand with each other. It's only thanks to modern
(300 yr old perhaps) ideas that groups have popped up all over
that attempted to apply this "sticking to the text only" notion
(I think it's rationalism? not sure which movement started its
popularity), allowing anybody to interpret text-as-it-is WITHOUT
the support of a culture, a history, a people, and a
self-consciousness of the process.So, perhaps this argument
_could_ wipe out a number of modern God concepts that are
text-only based, but does little to touch those religions whose
knowledge can't be reconstructed by a single text, or even a
multiple of texts but are passed on through other means such as
tradition or song or culture or art or numerous other ways that
go beyond a single holy book or two.Still, he was honest and
forthright. It struck me as a bit naive and he was using very
simple arguments in his proofs.But it's definitely one of the
better attempts I've seen at providing a persuasive argument. I
have other issues I could take with it but the clarity of "this
is what I know. This is what I dont know. I am not looking down
this pathway. I am only going down this other pathway. My
choices will affect my conclusions and I am working within my
biases, which are these..." - means that he has already
addressed most of them already.If I was an atheist and wanted to
be persuasive to convince another to join, I'd use this
video.[This is not perfect by any means [his three value split
of "types of God" I could blast right through it if I wanted to
with some Orthodox Christian theology I know] - I honestly have
no need to - I don't have a point to prove. My final take is
that he's done the best he can do with what he knows and has
been as honest as he can be at how he has reached his
conclusions].
==
*^ as someone who is agnostic, not atheist and haven't found
convincing arguments yet, nevertheless, I was impressed by Sean
Carroll's approach.If you wish to convince [even though I was
not ultimately convinced] - I think his methodology, delivery,
style - these are worth emulating. He's taking a good approach
in my opinion.Ultimately, I don't have too much issue with
someone attempting to promote their worldviews that are
favorable to them. But I am critical of sloppiness, slogans and
an unselfconscious zeal. If you know and express your biases in
some way, you can get a lot further in your quest, whatever that
may be.
===
* It does. He captures a lot of territory. Consider this though:
mature theologies - and there's really only a few out there for
various religions that I've seen - ALSO successfully eliminate
the bulk of other God ideas.the main difference I see here is
the end-product:a) Mature theology successfully shows the God
idea of everybody else is flawed, pointing that theirs is likely
correct. b) Carroll's argument successfully shows the God idea
of everybody else is flawed, pointing that his is likely
correct.In short, Carroll is presenting a theology. Carroll is a
theologian for atheism as he is presenting his idea of God as
superior to the rest.
==
*He's engaging in proper apologetics for his religion (by
religion, I speak of the general term of religion, not the
specific supernatural term) and does so quite well, which is why
I give him a gold star. Honestly, the first I've seen to do so
well and I've seen a lot of people try to convince.
==
*Now I confess to a bias as to my worldview: I am agnostic - I'm
not a believer neither am I not - I'm not doubting or skeptical.
Just don't know enough to say either way.HOWEVER, I see the
Abrahamic religions differenty since my exposure with the
Orthodox.The way the tree is drawn out may change depending on
perspective but it is more or less how I see the history of
Abrahamic religions now. Growing up, it was Methodist. All
groups seemed more or less equal. We happened to go there 'cause
it was nicer than the Catholic church in town - the only two
choices, and my mother didn't care WHAT religion we got really,
so long as it was good enough.So, to me, all more or less the
same. I gained even MORE of that same perspective when I was
looking into Unitarian Universalist. [in fact I've sent many
Atheists t
References
Visible links
1.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infobasepublishing.com%2F&h=RAQHHVW8h
2.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infobasepublishing.com%2F&h=PAQFzidJN
3.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mega.nu%2Fampp%2Frummel%2Fnote13.htm&h=eAQE7NhSB
4.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mega.nu%2Fampp%2Frummel%2Fdpf.chap35.htm&h=wAQEFPtfo
