Karen Armstrong on the connections between religion and violence

[hrmjustin]

INTERFAITH POST

Lauren Markoe

(RNS) In the West, the idea that religion is inherently violent is taken for granted by everyone from academics to cab drivers, says British religion scholar Karen Armstrong, the former Roman Catholic nun who wrote the best-selling “A History of God.”

Her new book, “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence,” picks at the presumably inextricable knot of religion and violence over the course of thousands of years of human history, scrutinizing even the peaceful intent of Jesus. We asked Armstrong about the Prince of Peace, human nature and the Islamic militancy roiling the Middle East and Africa. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/11/13/karen-armstrong-connections-religion-violence/

[rug]

1. She's got it right.

Unlike commenter "jon":

It’s certainly true that violence predates religion. It’s also certainly true that violence can and does happen today without religion, and that getting rid of religion would not get rid of all violence.

However, religion is clearly an aggravating factor which amplifies and enables violence. There are clear reasons for this in the very basis of religions. Because religions rely on private revelation (scripture) as a source of truth, those who disagree cannot “check the source”, to see if the private revelation is “real” as opposed to just something someone made up. Since private revelation cannot be objectively tested, the only thing left is to resolve the dispute by fighting, which is what has been proven time and again over the past several thousand years.

Without religion, people have to rely on objectively testable data for their worldview. If there is a disagreement, simply repeat the test, consult those who did, etc. No need to fight. If one wants to keep an idea of a pantheistic god, then that data could be called “public revelation”.

That’s one, perhaps the biggest, reason why religion is violent, why reducing religion reduces violence (shown many times by studies), and why supernatural religion needs to be abandoned if we are to have a just, healthy and peaceful world. It’s a lot like asking if smoking causes cancer – the answer is no – mutations cause cancer. But those mutations are encouraged and made much more likely if one smokes.

There are other reasons – like clear verses in most Bibles, the Qu’ran, and so on, which encourage violence. Those might be avoided with different scripture, but the supernatural basis of most religions makes the first reason unavoidable, regardless of how many counterexamples this book might list.

He believes religion contributes to violence because it lacks "objectively testable data".

It's amazing how many people are gullible enough to buy that.

Racism lacks "objectively testable data".

Nationalism lacks "objectively testable data".

Sexism lacks "objectively testable data".

Fascism lacks "objectively testable data".

To the extent they can be objectively tested at all, they are rebutted.

Yet all of them are used as well to foment violence and consolidate power.

A distinctly illogical and unempirical observation.

Haven't they ever read Marx?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure