How to fix the world...

[Castiel]

And do you honestly believe that? Really?

I believe sometimes there are much worse reasons for conflict than others.

In the wider arena of human conflict as a species, it is immaterial. In judge ping individual conflicts it is not...the OP made the thread a generalisation however, if you had not noticed.

However, the point remains that the underlying reasons are generally the same, human nature motivated by emotion.

 

[Dolph]

I'm not sure that's true. I think our society at the moment requires faith but I don't think that humanity as a whole does. I think we could get to a point where religion is obsolete, albeit many centuries from now.

I am not convinced, the faith that many people put into science they don't understand shows that faith is alive and well.

 

[Mason-]

And this, humans need faith, it very much seems built it. It just doesnt need to be religion, it can be all sorts of things, but it does very much seem like a need for faith is very much part of our DNA.

For me faith, specifically religious faith, mostly generates as an answer to questions that previously couldn't be answered, and as science has developed and the answers have come out then religion has taken a step back. It has to an extent not so long ago if you weren't a Christian in this country you were a pariah.

It's just gives answers to the unknown, what happens when we die? "Well if you live a good life you go to Heaven of course, it's great" well that makes life seem an awful lot less futile.

In the wider arena of human conflict as a species, it is immaterial. In judge ping individual conflicts it is not...the OP made the thread a generalisation however, if you had not noticed.

However, the point remains that the underlying reasons are generally the same, human nature motivated by emotion.

When does a thread ever follow the pattern of the OP, it's a discussion, it evolves. I don't quite get why you have referred me back to the OP however I'll humor you, like I've said there's a ton of conflict in the world, they all have different causalities, we disagree on that. One for me is religion and so I said that I thought it would help if religious conflict were to evaporate.

 

[Castiel]

I think you might have a slightly broader definition of faith than myself in this context.

Religion is just one manifestation of Faith..it isn't Faith in the absolute.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I am not convinced, the faith that many people put into science they don't understand shows that faith is alive and well.

So perhaps faith (in this context) is a coefficient of education and knowledge?

 

[Mason-]

Religion is just one manifestation of Faith..it isn't Faith in the absolute.

I do agree with you on this though. Religion to me is a set of rules and a specific group you belong to. Whereas faith for me is just the belief in something that doesn't have to be anything ethereal.

 

[Castiel]

So you don't think that there has ever been a single conflict caused by religion?

Not caused by, but justified by...there is a difference. The causes of most if not all conflict in human history is caused by a wide range of factors, the common denominator is simply..we want what you have/you can't have what we have...human emotion powers human conflict, religion is as much a victim of human emotion as any other justification for division and conflict.

By nature we are a violent and selfish species, tempered somewhat by our intelligence and need to socialise...religion is a manifestation of that societal imperative, so you could say that religion has played a part in tempering Human Nature rather than causing conflict where there would otherwise be none.

 

[Mason-]

Not caused by, but justified by...there is a difference. The causes of most if not all conflict in human history is caused by a wide range of factors, the common denominator is simply..we want what you have/you can't have what we have...human emotion powers human conflict, religion is as much a victim of human emotion as any other justification for division and conflict.

By nature we are a violent and selfish species, tempered somewhat by our intelligence and need to socialise...religion is a manifestation of that societal imperative, so you could say that religion has played a part in tempering Human Nature rather than causing conflict where there would otherwise be none.

I know there is a difference thanks but I still think religion has been the cause, and justification for that matter, of some conflicts.
And what about grievance?

A person with a lot of power loses something precious to them and they react with a tonne of force? I don't see how that spawns from I want what you have.

 

[Castiel]

When does a thread ever follow the pattern of the OP, it's a discussion, it evolves. I don't quite get why you have referred me back to the OP however I'll humor you, like I've said there's a ton of conflict in the world, they all have different causalities, we disagree on that.

No we don't disagree on that at all...I am clearly aware that each individual conflict has its origins in various causal factors...however the context was a generalisation, therefore when you made the context specific to individual conflicts rather than Human Conflict you altered the premise and so my statement wasn't relevant to that alteration, while remaining relevant to the wider context in which it was made.

One for me is religion and so I said that I thought it would help if religious conflict were to evaporate.

Am I am saying that as religion is not a causal factor but a justification for the actual underlying causes of such conflicts that the removal of religion would not necessarily remove the conflict..it would simply be replaced by another justification.

 

[Mangochutney]

Turn it off then back on again?

 

[Castiel]

I know there is a difference thanks but I still think religion has been the cause, and justification for that matter, of some conflicts.

Which ones?

And what about grievance?

A person with a lot of power loses something precious to them and they react with a tonne of force? I don't see how that spawns from I want what you have.

The person who has lost something has lost it to someone...that someone has taken something from them, the emotion is what drives each party, the grievance is caused by the suffering of one party at the hands of another...therefore the premise remains valid.

 

[Mason-]

Civilisation A is a follower of Religion A, it believes that it's religion is the truth.
Civilisation B is a follower of Religion B, it believes the same.

"One stating the other is blasphemy to my religion I do not want it being spread to other people as it is not the truth and so I will put an end to them spreading their religion"

Sounds familiar to me, and one being caused by religion, perhaps you saying religion is the justification of some causes, why can't the other causes be the justification of a religious conflict?

 

[Mason-]

The person who has lost something has lost it to someone...that someone has taken something from them, the emotion is what drives each party, the grievance is caused by the suffering of one party at the hands of another...therefore the premise remains valid.

No as the loss of that persons something may have not been a result of conflict (or greed) however the retaliation can be a conflict.

 

[Biohazard]

Which ones?

Still claiming that religion hasn't caused war?

No single issue-event really ever has, but it's the overriding one that gets remembered for it.

You could draw this disambiguation across the whole of history, but then you wouldn't have history then would you?

 

[Mason-]

Still claiming that religion hasn't caused war?

No single issue-event really ever has, but it's the overriding one that gets remembered for it.

You could draw this disambiguation across the whole of history, but then you wouldn't have history then would you?

While I do believe religion has been the cause, or rather the main cause, of some conflicts I don't think that how a conflict is 'remembered' defines the cause.

 

[Castiel]

Civilisation A is a follower of Religion A, it believes that it's religion is the truth.
Civilisation B is a follower of Religion B, it believes the same.

"One stating the other is blasphemy to my religion I do not want it being spread to other people as it is not the truth and so I will put an end to them spreading their religion"

Sounds familiar to me, and one being caused by religion perhaps you saying religion is the justification of some causes, why can't the other causes be the justification of a religious conflict?

And the underlying cause of a conflict between Civilisation A and Civilisation B is....Power, one civilisation seeking dominion over the other using their religion as the justifying factor...the cause is not the religion itself, but the need for dominion and power manifested through religion. We see similar conflicts justified by ideology and politics...some of the major conflicts in our history have been justified by the spread of Democracy or Communism..when the underlying factor is ultimately control and power.

 

[dowie]

People will always disagree over something.

Religion is NOT the cause of all the world's problems.

Nope - but strict adherence to ideologies, restricting personal freedoms unnecessarily etc.. Religion is the underlying cause behind a lot of problems in the world then again problems are also caused by oppressive authoritarian regimes/dictators, EU/US protectionism/trade barriers etc..

ban religion (should have happened many years ago)

ban money (could happen in another 1000 or so years)

not sure you could ban money - methods for accounting for and/or exchanging goods/services evolved fairly naturally. Money doesn't exist is just an abstract concept represented by bits of paper or just 1s and 0s on a computer.... supply of it doesn't *have* to be controlled by a central bank

 

[Biohazard]

While I do believe religion has been the cause, or rather the main cause, of some conflicts I don't think that how a conflict is 'remembered' defines the cause.

I'd argue history is exactly that. Give or take a bit of detail.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Civilisation A is a follower of Religion A, it believes that it's religion is the truth.
Civilisation B is a follower of Religion B, it believes the same.

"One stating the other is blasphemy to my religion I do not want it being spread to other people as it is not the truth and so I will put an end to them spreading their religion"

Sounds familiar to me, and one being caused by religion perhaps you saying religion is the justification of some causes, why can't the other causes be the justification of a religious conflict?

Few wars are that simple.

 

[dowie]