Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

[Nakosis]

In his hilarious analysis of The 10 Commandments, George Carlin said to loud applause, “More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason,” and many take this idea as an historical fact. When I hear someone state that religion has caused most wars, though, I will often and ask the person to name these wars. The response is typically, “Come on! The Crusades, The Inquisition, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, 9/11. Need I name more?”

Well, yes, we do need to name more, because while clearly there were wars that had religion as the prime cause, an objective look at history reveals that those killed in the name of religion have, in fact, been a tiny fraction in the bloody history of human conflict. In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare.
Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars? | HuffPost

Is this true? Should we stop pointing to religion as the major cause of violence between people?

Have most wars been fought for political/secular reasons? Or is this an incorrect biased view?

 

[`mud]

Politics, in my thinking, would be the most often cause,
because of some influence by religion pressures.
All in and all out, count the body bags !

 

[Vee]

I'm pretty sure the cause for most wars is human greed and thirst for power. Religion is a very effective tool in the process.

 

[columbus]

Is this true? Should we stop pointing to religion as the major cause

Religion is not the cause of most wars.
But it is how political players have gotten the little people to support their wars. Religion teaches people to believe things that are obviously untrue. Believe things because some authority says you must believe.

So when someone like a king, pope, or president want a war they explain the reason in religious language. That way, religious people won't ask embarrassing questions. They are already taught to accept the authority of the powerful.
Tom

 

[wizanda]

Should we stop pointing to religion as the major cause of violence between people?

Religions divide people; people divided fight each other.

In my opinion.

 

[Woberts]

Have most wars been fought for political/secular reasons?

When you say that, are you blaming atheism for most wars, or do you mean just mean non-religious reasons?

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I know, religion -- while a cause of a few wars -- is not the cause of most wars. However, the professional clergy in every nation have a tendency to line up behind the powers that be in support of whatever wars their nation engages in. My guess is about 80% of the clergy will support any given war, while about 20% will oppose it. That's a guess, though, and I could be very off.

 

[David T]

In his hilarious analysis of The 10 Commandments, George Carlin said to loud applause, “More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason,” and many take this idea as an historical fact. When I hear someone state that religion has caused most wars, though, I will often and ask the person to name these wars. The response is typically, “Come on! The Crusades, The Inquisition, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, 9/11. Need I name more?”

Well, yes, we do need to name more, because while clearly there were wars that had religion as the prime cause, an objective look at history reveals that those killed in the name of religion have, in fact, been a tiny fraction in the bloody history of human conflict. In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare.
Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars? | HuffPost

Is this true? Should we stop pointing to religion as the major cause of violence between people?

Have most wars been fought for political/secular reasons? Or is this an incorrect biased view?

well factually the atomic bomb was the result of reading psalms on Sunday morning. They took the bible out to new Mexico and built the first one. Open and shut case. It's historical fact.

 

[David T]

Religions divide people; people divided fight each other.

In my opinion.

It is interesting that a long time ago a heretic was killed for being a heretic Around him developed a Religion that then turned and began to kill people for being heretics oblivious to their text. Could religion be defined as becoming blind and confused to your own hand writing? If religion is that dumb on something it wrote how might we be even more clueless about nature itself, a something we did not write?.

I read an article in scientific American and in the intro it said the two greatest mysteries confronting science today is the human brain and the universe. It pronounced in.very church like fashion. I found it ironically accurate. To paraphrase that "the two things we understand the least, is ourselves, and reality around us"... I would say finally truth, inadvertent, and accidental and random as It is!!!

 

[David T]

When you say that, are you blaming atheism for most wars, or do you mean just mean non-religious reasons?

I am pretty sure that's an all encompassing statement because religion also can be hyper political. You should read lettergate ha!!!
Saying atheists are to blame specifically is equally as absurd.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In his hilarious analysis of The 10 Commandments, George Carlin said to loud applause, “More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason,” and many take this idea as an historical fact. When I hear someone state that religion has caused most wars, though, I will often and ask the person to name these wars. The response is typically, “Come on! The Crusades, The Inquisition, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, 9/11. Need I name more?”

Well, yes, we do need to name more, because while clearly there were wars that had religion as the prime cause, an objective look at history reveals that those killed in the name of religion have, in fact, been a tiny fraction in the bloody history of human conflict. In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare.
Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars? | HuffPost

Is this true? Should we stop pointing to religion as the major cause of violence between people?

Have most wars been fought for political/secular reasons? Or is this an incorrect biased view?

I can't think of any wars with a single cause that could be called "THE cause."

Religion is one causal factor in a significant number of wars... probably most.

 

[Quintessence]

A facet to consider when thinking about this question is how one understands the concept of religion in general. It's a problematic construct whose study in Western culture has been predictably biased by the nature of Western cultural norms themselves. When scholars in the field of religious studies can't even agree on what religion is, I don't know how you could possibly go about answering a question like this. You could spin it however you want depending on how you want to define "religion" and other nuances of the question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A facet to consider when thinking about this question is how one understands the concept of religion in general. It's a problematic construct whose study in Western culture has been predictably biased by the nature of Western cultural norms themselves. When scholars in the field of religious studies can't even agree on what religion is, I don't know how you could possibly go about answering a question like this. You could spin it however you want depending on how you want to define "religion" and other nuances of the question.

What's the range of thought on what "religion" means and how would it change the answer to the question?

I mean, I'm sure an argument could be made that some branches of religious traditions that we consider denominations of one religion are better understood as separate religions, but that just changes how we divide up the religious pie; it doesn't change a belief system from "religious" to "non-religious" or vice versa.

Same with, say, a Japanese person who uses some Shinto rituals and some Buddhist ones. Whether we say that he's primarily Shinto, primarily Buddhist, or practicing a syncretic religion, religion is still in the mix.

And if we can say that one side of a conflict was religiously motivated, then it doesn't really matter if we can pin down the other side. Take the Taiping Rebellion: regardless of whether we say that Confucianism is a religion (as opposed to a philosophy or whatnot), there's no question that the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom's beliefs were religious... and the driving force in the conflict.

 

[columbus]

View attachment 21094

I like that pic of a laughing clown with Bozo hair smiling out of the nuclear explosion.

It's so American.
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

What's the range of thought on what "religion" means and how would it change the answer to the question?

This was clearer in an earlier iteration of what I wrote, but I was thinking specifically of how Western thought views religion as something that is distinguishable from culture as a whole or a person's way of life as a whole. I also thought a bit about how Western thought conceptualizes religion in very Judeo-Christian terms, which means it'll only recognize something as "religion" if it looks like the J-C model.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is this true? Should we stop pointing to religion as the major cause of violence between people?

FWIW: "in the name of" and "caused by" are different criteria.

Religion is not the principle cause of war, but neither is it a sufficient ethical restraint. Whatever our theological beliefs, religion fails as an effective moral compass.

 

[David T]

I like that pic of a laughing clown with Bozo hair smiling out of the nuclear explosion.

It's so American.
Tom

Exactly why I posted it. I live in oregon. I stare back east through new York washington D.C. into europe There is the crazy bunch that started this mess!!! Lol. I blame the French and English with some Germans and Swedes mixed in. And nebraska football "go big red "we are always 2 minutes from global nuclear self destruction" lol.. sorry couldn't resist

.

 

[Nakosis]

I can't think of any wars with a single cause that could be called "THE cause."

Religion is one causal factor in a significant number of wars... probably most.

Which wars wouldn't have been fought if religion had not been a factor?

Not that I expect you to provide an answer, just more an open-ended question.

 

[Nakosis]

well factually the atomic bomb was the result of reading psalms on Sunday morning. They took the bible out to new Mexico and built the first one. Open and shut case. It's historical fact.
View attachment 21094

That cloud looks like a clown head...
Is it supposed to look like that?
Creepy clowns.

 

[Nakosis]

When you say that, are you blaming atheism for most wars, or do you mean just mean non-religious reasons?

I'm thinking more cause by political reasons. Like power, control, resources.

I imagine both theists and atheist can want these things.

For example Islam supposedly didn't wage war against people of the book, Christians, Jews...

Muslims against Jews, this is a more modern turn of events?