Thoughts on Dawkins - 3 Religion and Violence

3. Dawkins - Religion and Violence

One of the arguments made by the New Atheists regarding “good” religion and “bad” religion - e.g. the Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi and Bishop Tutu type of religious people, and the Jerry Falwell, Osama Bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini  type of religious people is that the good religion - while it may not be totally bad in itself - nevertheless serves to support and defend bad religion, therefore for that reason all religion must be abolished.

Clearly this is an incredibly bad argument. It seems to be claiming that if any group or organisation has some undesirable outcome or elements, the group itself should be removed. Thus we would have no drivers to prevent drunk drivers, we would fly no aircraft to prevent planes crashing, we would have no politicians to prevent corrupt or evil politicians, we would have no banks to prevent bank crashes and so on.

Nevertheless it is the case that some people feel religion in itself is a bad thing, no matter what religious people actually do.

In the book The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation by R. Scott Appleby the author writes at the beginning of the book about a presentation he makes on the role of religion on global conflicts.

Here he is describing his audience:

“Assembled in the cavernous auditorium of the National Defense University were 200 officers representing the various branches of the US armed forces along with policy analysts from the State Department and a smattering of foreign diplomats and visitors”

At the end of his presentation in which he has tried to show that religion can play both positive and negative roles in areas of global conflict, he writes this:

“... as the audience filed out of the auditorium, one of the officers remarked that my presentation had confirmed his previous opinions about the topic, “religion is a powerful medicine” he offered, “and it should be administered in small doses if at all”. This book is a rejoinder to that statement and to the broader sensibilities and opinions it represents. Specifically I refute the notion that religion, having so often inspired, legitimated and exacerbated deadly conflicts cannot be expected to contribute consistently to their peaceful resolution.”

The book then provides numerous examples to support the role many religious people play in seeking to resolve conflicts. The idea that these people in working towards a peaceful resolution to conflict in their region are actually supporting violence simply by being religious cannot be in any way supported by the evidence.

Also note that the comment “religion is a powerful medicine that should be administered in small doses if at all” is self-contradictory. If religion was a powerful medicine then of course it should be administered in whatever dose is necessary! Whoever heard of a medicine so powerful it should not even be administered?

When detectives are seeking to solve violent crimes - for example murder - they look for motives. Typically these motives will be money, thrill seeking, sex/passion, seeking status or fearing loss of status - the idea that religion is the major cause of violence is not supported by the evidence.

In fact it seems from reviewing history and human psychology that these types of motive are generally the real motivating factor in violent acts including wars. Wars are almost always fought as “politics by other means” (Carl von Clausewitz) in other words to further political influence and expansion, rather than religious differences. In Northern Ireland Catholics and Protestants didn’t start fighting over doctrinal differences but due to the abuses of civil rights, the Taliban didn’t arise as a result of religion, but due to the acts of aggression and repression by western powers in countries such as Afghanistan.

The idea that if we got rid of religion we would have a more peaceful world is nonsense - peace comes through justice, while powerful people are acting unjustly they will always be resisted, while nations exist they will compete for global resources - sometimes violently, while the powerful abuse their power there will be violence and unrest. The idea that all this would magically vanish if everyone was a secular atheist is absurd. Indeed to focus attention on religion instead of the injustice being perpetrated around the world simply serves to confuse and obscure the real issues.