Atheist claim: War is caused by religion if participants are religious.

[Kidlicious]

I'm watching a Hitchens debate and he claimed that WWI and WW2 were caused by religion. Are there any actual historians who believe this is true? How does a man who claims that objective reasoning is superior to faith make such ridiculous assertions?

As far as his claim that we should do away with religion for the sake of peace, I think that would be a stupid reason. The purpose of religion is not world peace.

Another assertion that he used to always turn back to is that religious thinking evolves with new evidence. The problem is that science does the same thing. So, so what?

Any Hitchens fans care to defend him?

[MikeH]

I am an atheist and I don't agree with him.

I think more often organised religion has been a convenient excuse, and useful for whipping up militant fervour in the populace, but it's by no means the only way you can do that.

[kentonio]

Another assertion that he used to always turn back to is that religious thinking evolves with new evidence. The problem is that science does the same thing. So, so what?

The difference is that science is supposed to evolve with new evidence. That's the entire point of science, to constantly learn and refine and progress. Most religions contain declarations of universal truth. They simply can't evolve without undermining the infallibility of their message, and given that they are utterly reliant on faith, that's damaging.

[Felch]

I guess if you broaden the definition of religion to include nationalism, militarism, racism, class warfare, political assassinations, and all the other evils of the world, then religion is the cause of WWI and WWII. Sort of like Alby redefining medication.

[Felch]

The difference is that science is supposed to evolve with new evidence. That's the entire point of science, to constantly learn and refine and progress. Most religions contain declarations of universal truth. They simply can't evolve without undermining the infallibility of their message, and given that they are utterly reliant on faith, that's damaging.

Granted there are some bad lessons from religion (like the entire book of Joshua for example), but I think this is an oversimplification.

Catholicism for example roots its teaching in faith and reason, and has been able to maintain relevance by acknowledging the changes in the world. Rerum Novarum is still one of the best answers for economic injustice that I've ever seen.

And not all universal truths need to be changed. Has the Golden Rule been proven faulty? Is it wrong to treat others the way we want them to treat us?

[kentonio]

And not all universal truths need to be changed. Has the Golden Rule been proven faulty? Is it wrong to treat others the way we want them to treat us?

Absolutely not. Maybe if religion stuck to teaching nice broad universal truths like that, and stopped trying to dictate standards of morality to people, then they might get on better.

[giblets]

I'm watching a Hitchens debate and he claimed that WWI and WW2 were caused by religion. Are there any actual historians who believe this is true? How does a man who claims that objective reasoning is superior to faith make such ridiculous assertions?

As far as his claim that we should do away with religion for the sake of peace, I think that would be a stupid reason. The purpose of religion is not world peace.

Another assertion that he used to always turn back to is that religious thinking evolves with new evidence. The problem is that science does the same thing. So, so what?

Any Hitchens fans care to defend him?

In another thread you made the ludicrous claim that people only bothered to fight in the American Revolution because of their religious beliefs. Now you consider it ridiculous that religion might have enabled the mass slaughter in WWI and WWII.

[Felch]

"Caused by religion," and "might have enabled" are two very different things. Which did Hitchens actually say?

[Barnabas]

I don't understand why atheists have such a high view of themselves with regards to the war and violence issue.

Atheists have only been important as a group since the XVIII century, and from that moment they have killed plenty of people, not only the communists, the french revolution had a lot of atheist and secularist violence and terror. And there have been persecusions of religious people by atheists, even in places close to the USA like Mexico, there was a Graham Greene novel about that, the Power and the Glory.

[Kidlicious]

The difference is that science is supposed to evolve with new evidence. That's the entire point of science, to constantly learn and refine and progress. Most religions contain declarations of universal truth. They simply can't evolve without undermining the infallibility of their message, and given that they are utterly reliant on faith, that's damaging.

You misunderstand christianity. You don't have faith in things like whether or not the theory of evolution is correct or not. Faith is compatable with reason. It isn't one or the other.

[Kidlicious]

In another thread you made the ludicrous claim that people only bothered to fight in the American Revolution because of their religious beliefs. Now you consider it ridiculous that religion might have enabled the mass slaughter in WWI and WWII.

It is a common and reasonable belief that the American Revolution was fought because of religion. Only a fool would say that people fought WW1 and WW2 because of religion.

[kentonio]

You misunderstand christianity. You don't have faith in things like whether or not the theory of evolution is correct or not. Faith is compatable with reason. It isn't one or the other.

Christianity has had to move its position countless times. You're aware that bible literalism was pretty much universal for an awfully long time, right?

It is a common and reasonable belief that the American Revolution was fought because of religion.

Is it? Please explain.

[Kidlicious]

Christianity has had to move its position countless times. You're aware that bible literalism was pretty much universal for an awfully long time, right?

Everyone moves their positions. So what?

Is it? Please explain.

Get yourself a history book. That was another thread, and gibblers comment wasn't intelligent anyway.

[kentonio]

Everyone moves their positions. So what?

Because you can't insist that something is the pure word of God, and then say it's actually not without having to do some pretty nifty theological footwork. You can make religion fit around pretty much anything, but religion does not suit change well.

Get yourself a history book. That was another thread, and gibblers comment wasn't intelligent anyway.

That war isn't one I've got a huge grounding in, but everything I've read said it had to do with economics and some peoples desire for self determination. I'm genuinely puzzled by why you'd pin it on religion.

[giblets]

It is a common and reasonable belief that the American Revolution was fought because of religion. Only a fool would say that people fought WW1 and WW2 because of religion.

I get it, you think Christianity deserves credit for wars you if you support them but shouldn't be blamed for wars you oppose.