Religion and vilolence.

The idea that a person or a nation's predominant religion may be the cause of wars - that religious differences are such that it is understandable that religions conflict may lead to violence or even war - seems to be making a resurgence.  With our last three wars taking place in areas where the majority of people hold different religious views than do the majority of Americans, with violence in America against mosques, Jewish and Sikh temples, and southern Black churches, it certainly seems that violence does at least seem attracted to religions institutions.  But to what extent ought one think that religion "causes" violence or war?

 This question is tricky.  Fortunately, we are trickier.  For the essential tricksy nature of this type of question, I’ll refer you to Richard Feynman’s soliloquy on magnets - he’s far smarter and more interesting than I am, so read this first, and then go there.  Suffice to say that the word “cause” is going to give us some problems.

Is religion involved in some wars?  Oh yeah.  Do people explain their violent actions in  terms of religion?  Often.  Do people believe that their religions sometimes compel them to go to war?  Yup.  Do these truths make religion a cause of violence and war?  Depends.  I believe that if one is careful in one’s thinking, one will think not.

Let’s start with “war”.  Here is a fairly good definition, from dictionary.com:

          “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between
          nations or between parties within a nation”

Assuming this is correct, we need a conflict, arms, and at least two parties in order to have a war.  Religion cannot directly create arms (in a conventional sense), so we’ll set that aside.  Can a religion create a conflict?  Perhaps.  Can religion create separate parties?  Maybe.  It depends a bit on what you believe a religion IS.

OK - now how about “religion”?  What exactly is a religion?  Here we will likely get a rich variety of possible definitions, so let’s start with some distinctions.  First, religion is not God.  Not even god.  If, in this context, we meant God, then the question would be “Does God cause wars?”, and I think we can agree that that is a different question.  So if a religion is not God, then I think we are safe in believing that a religion is created - that is, it is not the source of life or substance.  Religion, in the sense in which it is used in this context, seems to be something that is not divine, but very well may be believed by its adherents to be a path to or from the divine.  This is an important, if perhaps self-evident distinction.  Again, from dictionary.com regarding religion:

          “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and
          purpose of the universe, especially when
          considered as the creation of a superhuman agency
          or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
          observances, and often containing a moral code
          governing the conduct of human affairs.”

Now, many people will complain that a “set of beliefs” is too restrictive.  Their religion is more than a mere set of beliefs.  It is a way of life.  It is a relationship.  It is a transcendent experience of the oneness of all.  These may all be true, but the error is in the (often unspoken) word “mere”.  These beliefs aren’t “mere”.  They are anything but “mere”.  The beliefs by which one directs one’s life, beliefs involving, perhaps, the greatest secrets, blessings and curses of the universe have no taint of “mere” on them.  But they are beliefs - they are not facts.  They may be wonderful beliefs, they may include charity, love, vengeance, justice, forgiveness, grace, nothingness, and they may, ironically, disparage “belief” itself.  But it is, I think, what we are talking about when we consider religions causing wars.

Cause.  Oo boy.  This is the hardest of them all.  The rational among us believe that there is cause and there is effect.  Ultimately, for the most rational of us, there is an Ultimate Cause (Primum movens).  Aristotle argued for this, which only encouraged Aquinas.  Fortunately, Kant came along and argued that they were both in error, and for this I will forever be in Kant’s debt.  However if we were to accept the Ultimate Cause position, then we, ultimately, would be back talking about how God is the cause of war, and that is not helpful.

Back to the trusty dictionary.com, only this time with feeling:

          cause   [kawz] noun, verb, caused, causing.
          noun
          1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such
          a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the
          producer of an effect: You have been the cause of      
          much anxiety. What was the cause of the accident?
          2. the reason or motive for some human action: The
          good news was a cause for rejoicing.

Again, we have the problem of chain of causation or, as it has become known in popular culture, the “Butterfly Effect”.  So let’s get real here.  The butterfly cannot reasonably be thought to have caused the hurricane.  Not really.  That sort of distant, disinterested chain of events is not useful for us, other than to have a bit of an “everything is everything in the cosmic interconnected web” moment.  Fun as those are, they are not really helpful in assigning blame, which is essentially what this question presupposes to exist.  “Does religion cause violence and wars” is really asking “Can we blame religion for the violence and wars?”  If our only interest is if religion is one link in the chain of events, then the answer was obvious from the beginning - of course religion causes violence and wars.  If, however, we are attempting to assign responsibility, that is another matter, and that is, I think, is the real nature of the question. 

And the answer is “No”.  Remarkably simply, the answer is “no”. 

Religions are created by people to explain, and perhaps contain, the human condition and its relationship to the universe.  Whether or not a deity is behind it (and I do believe that there is such a deity), the religion and its tenants, regulations, proscriptions and permissions are the embodiment of a peoples’ questions and conclusions regarding reality.  The religion does not exist separate from the people - it a manifestation of aspects of the people themselves.  A deity may exist without the people, but without the people, there is no religion.

If religion is the work of the people, if people create, nurture, change, and harvest the fruits of their religion, is it fair to say that it was the religion that has caused a war?  I think not.  If two people are in a relationship that turns abusive, can one person say that it was not his or her fault that he or she killed the partner - it was the relationship’s fault?  They created the relationship, poured themselves into it and made decisions based on the relationship, but the responsibility rests with the persons themselves - the real moral agents.  Likewise, we cannot excuse our actions or the actions of others by labeling them as "religious". We cannot invest our creations with the responsibility for our own actions.

It is not my place to say whether the violence or war is justified or not.  Only that it is sloppy and dangerous to blame it on “religion”.  One may believe that it was the will of the people, or believe that it is the will of God, but religion has no will of its own - it is a reflection of the will of God or of the people.  If we are satisfied with a war, credit the people, or credit their God.  If we are not, then assign the blame to the people or to their God.  Struggling with this may yield important information about the nature of both of them.  Blaming religion is a shortcut that allows us to avoid examining ourselves and questioning our Gods, and history has shown us that this well-worn path rarely leads to enlightenment or to honor.  That way lie monsters.  Pax.