Religion and War

[.Kafka]

Yes, true, mankind isn't needed either, nor is cancer, or grape juice. I'm not needed either, and I suspect the same of you. That really isn't a convincing argument - very little is "needed."

As it is, religion does quite a lot of good in the world - there is no denying it - the charity of religious institutions and their functions in fostering community amongst people is to be commended. I am not a believer, but I can still appreciate the cultural benefits of a religious tradition.

My family is Jewish, but I, as a non-believer, still see the qualities in the traditions and history I come from, and the good sense of community it creates. I can go into a synagogue across the world and feel welcomed - that isn't something small - it is a part of identity - can it be lived without? Perhaps, we can live without Chinese food too, but Chinese food is a respectable art form and is worth saving and enjoying.

Haha. Agreed. I suppose it was not the best form to express my notions on religion, eschatology, and ontology; all of which are interwoven even in their independent use of disciplinary terminology. I was attempting to be rhetorical and draw attention to the nature of religion not as a need but as a system constituent of faith. Religion is not a business, its purpose is not to serve us, but for us to serve 'it'. Humans need food, we need water and shelter but we do not need religion per say. 'Religion' will not give us these things, that is an abstract hope that religious hierarchies feed the uncultivated and which is championed by the bourgeoisie. Religion has nothing to do with humanities need for 'it'.

For example, Islam by definition means 'submission'. Religion, in my interpretation, is about giving and not needing, and it is in this understanding that I think religion is in opposition to the concept of need. As such I maintain my statement, 'Religion is not needed'.

[JuniperWoolf]

Religion is not needed for anything. Not for war. Not for life. Not for discipline. Religion is not needed.

I think that what religion really comes down to is fear of death. It's no coincidence that older people have a higher tendency to be religious, it's not as though atheism is a new idea that has only recently been adopted by the young (although it is true that the relative social acceptance of atheism has only happened fairly recently). I think that old and sick people really do "need" to have that hope that their existence is not going to end, because they're understandably scared. I'm not talking about organized religion here (the little origin stories, the sacred crackers, whatever), I'm talking about religion in the context of having hope that there's something after death. That kind of spirituality is needed.

[mazHur]

Haha. Agreed. I suppose it was not the best form to express my notions on religion, eschatology, and ontology; all of which are interwoven even in their independent use of disciplinary terminology. I was attempting to be rhetorical and draw attention to the nature of religion not as a need but as a system constituent of faith. Religion is not a business, its purpose is not to serve us, but for us to serve 'it'. Humans need food, we need water and shelter but we do not need religion per say. 'Religion' will not give us these things, that is an abstract hope that religious hierarchies feed the uncultivated and which is championed by the bourgeoisie. Religion has nothing to do with humanities need for 'it'.

For example, Islam by definition means 'submission'. Religion, in my interpretation, is about giving and not needing, and it is in this understanding that I think religion is in opposition to the concept of need. As such I maintain my statement, 'Religion is not needed'.

Religion is the motivational force behind feeding the hungry and helping the needy in distress. At least In India and Pakistan more welfare work is done by 'religious elements' than anyone else, more than what govts can do. If there was no religion the millions affected by the ongoing floods would have simply perished. It is the religious groups which are the first ones to rush to their help, the same they did during the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan.
Religion is a code of life, if it teaches one. Without standard morals and ethics of universal acceptance there is little to expect from humans in sympathy or empathy for other humans...

Islam is 'submission' but only to the Will of Allah. Islam condemns 'submission' to the will of any human...so here lies the difference.

[Scheherazade]

From OP:

I think that there are nearly always, other motives that are the main reason for going to war. Ambition, greed, resource competition etc...
A world without religion is not a world without war, just a world with honest war.

Please note that discussion of current politics is NOT allowed on this Forum.

Posts containing references to current politics and off-topic comments will be removed without further notice.

[The Atheist]

Also, since it was mentioned earlier about the good religion does in the world. I agree they do plenty of fine charity work, I'm just bothered by how we often allow religious charities to undermine other necessary charity work. Since JBI is Canadian, just look at the Harper government's recent movement to move funding away from charities that provide abortions for women in the third world to more religiously based charities, this is not a good thing. Likewise, the Catholic church continues to endorse the criminilization of homosexuality in Africa, in the case of Uganda the Arch-Bishop endorsed the death penalty until this drew negative press and the Vatican made him tone back to endorsing merely a life imprisonment. Then there's Mormon missionaries subverting AIDS charities by buying condoms off of people. Religion has the power to organize people, and organizing people has the power to do a lot of good and a lot of bad.

That's what bothers me about apologists for religion who cry "leave it alone". They turn a blind eye to the damaging aspects.

I'm not talking about organized religion here (the little origin stories, the sacred crackers, whatever), I'm talking about religion in the context of having hope that there's something after death. That kind of spirituality is needed.

Why?

Wouldn't it be better if people concentrated on this life?

Which segues nicely back to the OP.

Without the support of religions telling participants they will be received in heaven as payment for dying for their country, I'm sure fewer people would participate in wars.

It always amuses me that in most wars, the same god is allegedly telling people on both sides that they are in the right. Every unit has a chaplain.

[Paulclem]

I think that what religion really comes down to is fear of death. It's no coincidence that older people have a higher tendency to be religious, it's not as though atheism is a new idea that has only recently been adopted by the young (although it is true that the relative social acceptance of atheism has only happened fairly recently). I think that old and sick people really do "need" to have that hope that their existence is not going to end, because they're understandably scared. I'm not talking about organized religion here (the little origin stories, the sacred crackers, whatever), I'm talking about religion in the context of having hope that there's something after death. That kind of spirituality is needed.

I think this is an oversimplification. Yes, you may well get people turning to religion for that reason , but there are plenty of other reasons. Religion is often referred to in scathing tones, and it may seem as if it is merely a crutch with which to withstand life. Again, some people need that. Yet religious people have often sought and chosen a path that impresses, or suits them - and I'm not talking about those who broadcast the need to find themselves.

The idea of service/charity is a very strong motivator and may have nothing to do with the organised aspects of religion. Small deeds of service/charity are done daily by virtually invisible people. We don't hear about this though because the motivation for such acts is not self aggrandizement, but purely service - adding something positive to daily life. I have seen this.

Many people also have a sense of otherness, which they may interpret as a sense of God or whatever. It's not some kind of exclusive club or anything like that, but may well prompt investigation or the adoption of a way of life according to a chosen creed.

Many others simply have a religious way of life passed to them from their family, and it is the most natural thing in the world for them to adhere to religious principles. This may well not be the case in many western democracies, but you see it in asian countries. We have a cynical sense here in the west, but if you meet Tibetans, for example, their Buddhist background permeates how they behave, (generally speaking) to others. It's the same in India. I dislike prejudice, inequality etc, but the same religious culture that keeps people within the same caste, also inspires them to be helpful and kind- generally speaking. (That was my experience of it in Mumbai. The most dismissive, unkind people were those generally in the posh hotels with obvious wealth).

[BienvenuJDC]

I think this is an oversimplification. Yes, you may well get people turning to religion for that reason , but there are plenty of other reasons. Religion is often referred to in scathing tones, and it may seem as if it is merely a crutch with which to withstand life. Again, some people need that. Yet religious people have often sought and chosen a path that impresses, or suits them - and I'm not talking about those who broadcast the need to find themselves.

The idea of service/charity is a very strong motivator and may have nothing to do with the organised aspects of religion. Small deeds of service/charity are done daily by virtually invisible people. We don't hear about this though because the motivation for such acts is not self aggrandizement, but purely service - adding something positive to daily life. I have seen this.

Many people also have a sense of otherness, which they may interpret as a sense of God or whatever. It's not some kind of exclusive club or anything like that, but may well prompt investigation or the adoption of a way of life according to a chosen creed.

Many others simply have a religious way of life passed to them from their family, and it is the most natural thing in the world for them to adhere to religious principles. This may well not be the case in many western democracies, but you see it in asian countries. We have a cynical sense here in the west, but if you meet Tibetans, for example, their Buddhist background permeates how they behave, (generally speaking) to others. It's the same in India. I dislike prejudice, inequality etc, but the same religious culture that keeps people within the same caste, also inspires them to be helpful and kind- generally speaking. (That was my experience of it in Mumbai. The most dismissive, unkind people were those generally in the posh hotels with obvious wealth).

I agree with much of what you say. It seems that some who despise being judged by "religious people" are so quick to judge them too.

[JuniperWoolf]

Why?

Wouldn't it be better if people concentrated on this life?

It's not possible to just concentrate on this life. Sooner or later, a loved one will die or you'll get sick or you'll get old, and then you start to think about what death means. It's a huge part of our psychological fabric.

The idea of service/charity is a very strong motivator and may have nothing to do with the organised aspects of religion.

Yeah, but you could argue that (some) people are charitable because the bible tells them that they have to be or they'll go to hell, so it still comes right back to death.

Many people also have a sense of otherness, which they may interpret as a sense of God or whatever.

I'd argue that it's wishful thinking. And why would anyone want to believe in a god? Because they don't want to die (or they don't want to be alone, that's a big part of religion too).

Many others simply have a religious way of life passed to them from their family, and it is the most natural thing in the world for them to adhere to religious principles.

You're right, that's true. Some people are born into it, and on an individual level that's why they're religious. On a broader, more universal level I'm almost sure that religion has survived because of fear of death. It used to be because they were curious about things such as "how does the wind blow?" and "what's on the underside of the earth?" but science has answered those questions so it isn't really about curiosity anymore (even though some people still try to use god to answer questions that science hasn't been able to yet).

[Sebas. Melmoth]

It's not possible to just concentrate on this life. Sooner or later, a loved one will die or you'll get sick or you'll get old, and then you start to think about what death means. It's a huge part of our psychological fabric.

Right. That's what I said on your 'existential crisis' thread.

[OrphanPip]

Meh, it's not death that concerns me so much. Dying might be highly unpleasant, especially if it involves cancer or some other slow painful process. Death itself will likely just be nothingness, and you can't really worry too much about that, you won't be around to worry.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Obviously you've never seen a loved one die.

You can believe: death is an extremely ugly thing.

But if you live long enough, I daresay you'll find out for yourself.

[OrphanPip]

Obviously you've never seen a loved one die.

You can believe: death is an extremely ugly thing.

But if you live long enough, I daresay you'll find out for yourself.

Yes, I've seen loved ones die, and the process of dying is an unpleasant thing, death is the release. However, what comes after isn't anything to be too worried about, you won't be around to suffer.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

what comes after isn't anything to be too worried about

Wow!--you've been there and back then.

[OrphanPip]

Wow!--you've been there and back then.

No, I'm just a firm believer that your mind is a physiological product, thus when your brain stops functioning, you no longer exist. Any other conclusion is merely a wishful fantasy.

[The Atheist]

It's not possible to just concentrate on this life.

Rubbish. Of course it is - millions of people manage it, mainly because, like me, they believe it's the only chance we'll get.

Sooner or later, a loved one will die or you'll get sick or you'll get old, and then you start to think about what death means. It's a huge part of our psychological fabric.

I've had plenty of loved ones die and I've thought about what death means for 40 years. I haven't seen fit to change my mind so far and I strongly doubt I ever will.

Yeah, but you could argue that (some) people are charitable because the bible tells them that they have to be or they'll go to hell, so it still comes right back to death.

That's exactly what I say. Building up brownie points because of an order by an omiscient being that runs the universe isn't altruism.