Why no religion in civ 5?

[woodshadows]

You seem to make one point:

"Very rarely has religion been the ultimate cause for a war."

and then proceed to argue against yourself:

"religion has often served as a convenient pretext for wars.... "

Pretext or the reason, makes no difference, they were still religious wars!

I also said don't confuse causation with justification, which you then proceeded to do anyhow. Causation and justification are two very different things and both clearly indicated in the statements above. "..cause for a war." and "..convenient pretext for wars". To be very clear for you: "cause for a war"=causation; "pretext for wars"=justification.

You state "Pretext or the reason, makes no difference, they were still religious wars!" It makes a vast difference when arguing for or against the statement that "war is the cause of most of the world's wars", which is the exact statement I was contesting, ala "Originally Posted by mica8911
Religion was the cause for more invasions and wars than anything in history."

If you can't see a difference between something being the cause of an event and something being the justification for an event, then you are more far gone than I can help you with.

 

[woodshadows]

While I disagree with the premise, he's not contradicting himself.

"religion has often served as a convenient pretext for wars" means that while religion might have been cited as the cause by the aggressor, they're lying/mistaken. The word 'pretext' strongly implies that the wars were NOT about religion.

Elaborate on your disagreement?

I'm not particularly religious, if at all, but I do have a distaste for ideas that gain popular appeal and are regurgitated without any rational thinking and with the assumption of truth on their side. When emotions come into play truth gets bent out of shape very quickly; atheists as a counter-movement are so often just as emotionally motivated as religious people. The hatred atheists can summon for their 'idea' is an ugly sight and a sharp indicator of personal motivations behind adopting the stance and being such vocal proponents of it.

The middle east and europe are a small slice of the world, both in population and in land area. Outside of these areas I think you would be hardpressed to find large examples of religion playing a role in wars, whether passively as justification or even more unlikely as causation. More often ethnicity/language has been a more powerful motivation for justifying or causing wars in other parts of the globe. Some power hungry depots in Europe finding it convenient to form alliances, citing religious sectarian unity as a binding force for that alliance in order to facilitate the amassing of more power at the expense of other nations, isn't exactly an overwhelming mass of support for an argument that "religion has caused more wars in the world than anything else". Even the most obvious example of a 'religious war', the crusades, are questionable as to ultimate causes or motivations for their being undertaken and as 'wars' are really just a side-note in history when contrasted with all the numerous other wars which have taken place around the globe throughout history.

 

[TyBoy]

I think if you take this argument to its conclusion its inevitably true that religion is probably just the pretext for wars. I mean, unless you genuinely believe that supernatural beings are whispering in people's ears that they should start the wars, anything those people do is probably attributable to their personal motivations.

I would argue that GrumpyFlumps is actually right, it makes no difference whether religion was the pretext or the reason. A leader can want something for non-religious reasons that requires war to get. But if religion causes them to believe they are entitled to take it, motivates their followers to fight for them and justifies savagery in the execution of that war then religion takes the large part of the blame for that situation. For its only role to be as a justification for war all/most of the people supporting the war would have to be in on the real reason, with the justification being just an excuse for the other side and third parties. I don't think that's the case in history.


I wouldn't downplay the significance of europe and the middle east as a part of the world, particularly in this context. For western culture, it was effectively the entire world up until a few hundred years ago. And certainly when westerners talk about religion in history, they are mostly referring to its place in the history of the western world.

I'd have to see some evidence that the crusades would have happened without the influence of religion before I would call a religious motivation for them questionable. There's certainly plenty of evidence that religion was the main reason/cause/pretext/enabler for those wars. A rational person is going to draw some conclusions about religion and warmongering from that. It's perfectly fair to argue that conventional thinking is wrong about something, but you generally have to back that up with more than just a "you can't prove it's not true" kind of argument.


My problem with religion in CIV was that it was basically a giant diplomacy lotto, whichever civ had the same religion randomly spread to their cities that you had randomly spread to yours were your friends. I was glad to see it gone.

 

[nokmirt]

While I disagree with the premise, he's not contradicting himself.

"religion has often served as a convenient pretext for wars" means that while religion might have been cited as the cause by the aggressor, they're lying/mistaken. The word 'pretext' strongly implies that the wars were NOT about religion.

No war in history can be entirely attributable to religion, even the Crusades. Often religion was used to justify war. For example, if a crusader army murdered 7,000 muslim civilians in a city, it was justified, because "We did it in the name of God." Religion seems to have been a ticket to a clear conscience. Many times it was just an excuse to cover up a true meaning the aggressor did not want portayed to the world. There are so many reasons for war, religion is just a part of that process, which includes, politics, greed, desire to kill, to conquer etc. Religious fervor is very powerful tool to use as a means to an end. Nevertheless however, religions are part of human history and its development through time. So this is a fact that cannot be swept under the rug, and should be part of CiV. They should have religion in some context within the game. It also should effect diplomacy and trade as it did in history. Types of governments and ideologies should also be added. The game needs to be smartened up!

My problem with religion in CIV was that it was basically a giant diplomacy lotto, whichever civ had the same religion randomly spread to their cities that you had randomly spread to yours were your friends. I was glad to see it gone.

I agree with this and your right. If CiV does add religion at some point it will have to be balanced better and designed from a different point of view, so that just one group of civs cannot monopolize it, while others are hung out to dry. Things need to be more equalized somehow.

 

[woodshadows]

I would argue that GrumpyFlumps is actually right, it makes no difference whether religion was the pretext or the reason.

It makes a very big difference whether religion was the pretext or the reason in the context of my arguing against the statement another poster made that 'most of the wars of history were caused by religion'; if you want to put it into some other context and then say the argument is 'meaningless' is another matter, you could put my argument in a context that has nothing to do with my argument, such as the context of 'what's better, oranges or banana pie' and then really zing it home to me that my argument is 'meaningless'; it doesn't change anything in respect to my argument being very valid taken in the proper context for which it was intended.

A leader can want something for non-religious reasons that requires war to get. But if religion causes them to believe they are entitled to take it, motivates their followers to fight for them and justifies savagery in the execution of that war then religion takes the large part of the blame for that situation. For its only role to be as a justification for war all/most of the people supporting the war would have to be in on the real reason, with the justification being just an excuse for the other side and third parties. I don't think that's the case in history.

This argument shows a misunderstanding of what is commonly understood by the term 'cause'. None of your explanations satisfy the criteria for being a 'cause', not in a broad, worldwide, all-history viewpoint way.

Is religion the material cause? [The material cause of an object is equivalent to the nature of the raw material out of which the object is composed.]

No.

Is religion the formal cause? [Formal cause is a term describing the pattern or form which when present makes matter into a particular type of thing, which we recognize as being of that particular type.]

Again, no.

Is religion the final cause? [or telos, is defined as the purpose, end, aim, or goal of something]

There are some historical precedents for this, specifically I think the Mohammedan conflicts in the early days of Islam would possibly be described in this way, in so far as the wars had a religious goal in mind. On a worldwide and entire history view however, there aren't a great many examples of this sort of thing taking place. Amongst polytheistic religions of which the world in a majority way previously consisted for the majority of civilization, religion rarely was cause for strife between peoples.

Is religion the efficient cause? [The "efficient cause" of an object is equivalent to that which causes change and motion to start or stop (such as a painter painting a house)]

Religion does not 'cause' this motion, it might help to facilitate, but if you use this as your argument you can argue virtually anything as being the 'cause' of wars, including but not limited to: life, food, oxygen, water, writing, reading, intelligence, hair, toes, fingers, wheat, etc, in so far as all of these help facilitate the conduct of war, but no one would think to describe them as being the 'cause' of war. Admittedly ultimate causes for wars are very difficult to pin down, I don't claim to say why this and that war was waged, but with this nor am I simple-minded enough to simply ascribe them to 'religion' as the 'cause', tho it often may be the casus belli for wars. There's the famous historical example on which the Iliad is based, the common idea is that the war was waged over one woman Helen, many historians however contest this idea and say the ultimate cause for the war was to control a vital geopolitical location. Nobody knows for certain, possibly not even those who initiated the war originally. Why does any of this matter? Well, if you are going to paint black the entire domain of what is encapsulated by the term 'religion' by saying that 'religion is the cause of most of historys wars' then I take issue with this and think this very wrong idea should be challenged and shown for the fluff it really is.

I wouldn't downplay the significance of europe and the middle east as a part of the world, particularly in this context. For western culture, it was effectively the entire world up until a few hundred years ago. And certainly when westerners talk about religion in history, they are mostly referring to its place in the history of the western world.

Eurocentric.

I'd have to see some evidence that the crusades would have happened without the influence of religion before I would call a religious motivation for them questionable.

Go to the library and read a book. Or, do what most people do, read the wikipedia article.

 

[nokmirt]

Why were the Crusades launched? Were the Crusades primarily religious, political, economic, or a combination? There is a wide variety of opinion on this matter. Some argue that they were a necessary response by Christendom to the oppression of pilgrims in Muslim-controlled Jerusalem. Others claim that it was political imperialism masked by religious piety. Still others argue that it was a social release for a society that was becoming overburdened by landless nobles.

Christians commonly try to defend the Crusades as political or at least as politics being masked by religion, but in reality sincere religious devotion — both Muslim and Christian — played a primary role on both sides. It's little wonder that the Crusades are so often cited as a reason to regard religion as a cause for violence in human history. The most immediate cause for the Crusades is also the most obvious: Muslim incursions into previously Christian lands. On multiple fronts, Muslims were invading Christian lands to convert the inhabitants and assume control in the name of Islam.

A "Crusade" had been underway on the Iberian peninsula since 711 when Muslim invaders conquered most of the region. Better known as the Reconquista, it lasted until the tiny kingdom of Grenada was reconquered in 1492. In the East, Muslim attacks on land controlled by the Byzantine Empire had been going on for a long time. After the battle of Manzikert in 1071, much of Asia Minor fell to the Seljuk Turks, and it was unlikely that this last outpost of the Roman Empire would be able to survive further concentrated assaults. It wasn't long before the Byzantine Christians asked for help from Christians in Europe, and it's no surprise that their plea was answered.

A military expedition against the Turks held out a lot of promise, not least of which was the possible reunification of the Eastern and Western churches, should the West prove capable of defeating the Muslim menace which had for so long plagued the East. Thus the Christian interest in the Crusades was not only to end the Muslim threat, but also to end the Christian schism. Aside from that, however, was the fact that if Constantinople fell then all of Europe would be open to invasion, a prospect that weighed heavily on the minds of European Christians.

Another cause for the Crusades was the increase in problems experienced by Christian pilgrims in the region. Pilgrimages were very important to European Christians for religious, social, and political reasons. Anyone who successfully made the long and arduous journey to Jerusalem not only demonstrated their religious devotion, but also became beneficiaries of significant religious benefits. A pilgrimage wiped clean one's plate of sins (sometimes it was a requirement, the sins were so egregious) and in some cases served to minimize future sins as well. Without these religious pilgrimages, Christians would have had a harder time justifying claims to ownership and authority over the region.

The religious enthusiasm of the people who went off on the Crusades can't be ignored. Although there were a number of distinct campaigns launched, a general "crusading spirit" swept across much of Europe for a long time. Some Crusaders claimed to experience visions of God ordering them to the Holy Land. These usually ended in failure because the visionary was typically a person without any political or military experience. Joining a Crusade was not simply a matter of participating in military conquest: it was a form of religious devotion, particularly among those seeking forgiveness for their sins. Humble pilgrimages had been replaced by armed pilgrimages as church authorities used the Crusades as part of the penance people had to do to repay sins.

Not all of the causes were quite so religious, though. We know that the Italian merchant states, already powerful and influential, wished to expand their trade in the Mediterranean. This was being blocked by Muslim control of many strategic seaports, so if Muslim domination of the eastern Mediterranean could be ended or at least significantly weakened, then cities like Venice, Genoa, and Pisa had a chance to enrich themselves further. Of course, richer Italian states also meant a richer Vatican.

In the end, the violence, death, destruction, and continuing bad blood that last through to the present day would not have occurred without religion. It doesn't matter so much who "started it," Christians or Muslims. What matters is that Christians and Muslims eagerly participated in mass murder and destruction, mostly for the sake of religious beliefs, religious conquest, and religious supremacism. The Crusades exemplify the way in which religious devotion can become a violent act in a grand, cosmic drama of good vs. evil — an attitude which persists through today in the form of religious extremists and terrorists.

There had to be religion people. Religion is the great motivator that is missing from CiV!

 

[woodshadows]

In the end, the violence, death, destruction, and continuing bad blood that last through to the present day would not have occurred without religion. It doesn't matter so much who "started it," Christians or Muslims. What matters is that Christians and Muslims eagerly participated in mass murder and destruction, mostly for the sake of religious beliefs, religious conquest, and religious supremacism. The Crusades exemplify the way in which religious devotion can become a violent act in a grand, cosmic drama of good vs. evil — an attitude which persists through today in the form of religious extremists and terrorists.

Facilitating isn't the same as causing. "religious devotion can become a violent act", as can anything; love, science, art, you name it, anything can be twisted to 'evil' ends. Are guns the cause of wars? No. Guns help in the prosecution of war by giving advantages. Is religion the cause of wars? No. Religion can be used to help in the prosecution of wars, in providing morale to troops, a single idea to rally behind, etc. Roman history is rife with examples of using religion in this way.

 

[gharris545]

Unless they were going to make religion more interesting by differentiating the effects of different creeds and letting you choose a faith to fit your strategy (as Mods like Rise of Mankind did), they were wise to take it out. Or rather, to subsume it under Social Policy. (Making a choice betwee Piety and Rationalism, and building religious structures for their effect on happiness and culture, is sufficient.) I miss the subtle differences and religion-specific Wonders available under ROM, but not the generalized system in use in Civ IV.

 

[TyBoy]

You say that your argument that religion was a "pretext and not a cause" was made in the context of another poster's statement that "most of the wars of history were caused by religion." I argued that, within the context of a war (an aspect of large scale human behavior), the pretext and cause for something are not distinct when it comes to applying blame. I think its fair to say that figuring the "cause" for something is fundamentally the same as figuring which actions or conditions are to blame for that thing. Would you agree? Then I expanded on the situation you described in which, by your standard, the religious nature of the cause for war was left deliberately undefined, but the majority of the blame for the situation still rested on the role of religion. I don't feel like I strayed at all from your stated context of whether or not a war is caused by religion. I don't accept your statement that I took your argument out of context without any reference to a part of it that is out of context.
I think you can validly argue that religion is not the greatest causer of wars in all of human history. You've taken it much farther than that though and stated that religion is very rarely, if ever, a causer of wars (I mean, if it's questionable whether religion is a cause for the crusades, then I can't imagine another example that would qualify). I feel like I should be clear and say that that is the position with which I disagreed.


It's completely inappropriate to apply Aristotle's definitions of cause to this situation. Those were meant to describe the causes of physical phenomena, not the causes of human actions. It's not saying much that they tend to not easily apply to the broad actions of human history (and I'm completely ignoring his tendency to be straight up wrong about pretty much anything relating to laws of nature). It's certainly not fair to say that they constitute the commonly understood definition of cause in the context of human behavior.

I disagree that the logic extends to saying things like "life, food, oxygen..." are a cause for the event. The wars commonly attributed to religion tend to not increase the warriors access to "life, food, oxygen..." Therefore, it's not reasonable to say that the pursuit of those things was a motivation for the war. On the other hand, they do tend to increase the warriors access to religious satisfaction, so it is reasonable to say that religion was a motivation (cause of behavior) for the war. The argument that a pretext and cause for war are equivalent does not extend to "life, food, oxygen..." unless "life, food, oxygen..." were being legitimately used as a pretext for war.

Basically in like a single post we managed to devolve this into what is an appropriate definition for cause. This is something that could be delved into pretty extensively, but I won't do that. I'll just say that whenever I have used the word I am defining it in a way which is synonymous with: either "reason" or "motivation" in the context of human behavior; and either "initiator" or "enabler" in the context of a deterministic system. You can, of course, feel free to disagree.



P.S. Eurocentrism as a valid context for discussion of world history, especially (though not exclusively) by westerners. That is a discussion I would like to have in another place.

 

[woodshadows]

I think you can validly argue that religion is not the greatest causer of wars in all of human history. You've taken it much farther than that though and stated that religion is very rarely, if ever, a causer of wars (I mean, if it's questionable whether religion is a cause for the crusades, then I can't imagine another example that would qualify). I feel like I should be clear and say that that is the position with which I disagreed.

Your first sentence there is what I am arguing. I'm not sure what history books you're reading but if you have a fairly broad knowledge of historical wars across the globe from the dawn of civilization you would too come to the conclusion that religion was not often a primary motivating cause for wars being engaged in. I am not going to elucidate upon this with every example, but some obvious ones which most people are familiar with spring to mind; the roman republic and early roman empire, the persian wars of cyrus and later alexanders conquest of, napoleonic wars, genghis khan's wars of conquest, most wars fought in east asia.. need I go on? You keep saying 'the crusades' over and over again yet don't come up with more than that. I even volunteered an obvious example of a religious war (early muslim expansion in the time of Mohammed) just to get you on the right track but you seem to have lost sight of this one and still cling to the crusades, wars which definitely were influenced and/or facilitated by religion, but weren't definitively caused by religion. Outside of this there is some sectarian fighting amongst christian europe and muslim middle east where sects are more about forming alliances than caring about religious fervour.

It's completely inappropriate to apply Aristotle's definitions of cause to this situation. Those were meant to describe the causes of physical phenomena, not the causes of human actions. It's not saying much that they tend to not easily apply to the broad actions of human history (and I'm completely ignoring his tendency to be straight up wrong about pretty much anything relating to laws of nature). It's certainly not fair to say that they constitute the commonly understood definition of cause in the context of human behavior.

It is not inappropriate at all and that is your contention that he meant it only for describing physical phenomena, I would argue otherwise. I'm not sure what you missed either, there was a case in which 'final cause' most certainly does have a direct tie-in with religion being a 'cause' of a war, ala the Mohammedan conquests. Religion was the aim of those wars, the spread of that religion. I presented this example to illustrate what a proper example might be for any claim of religion being the cause of a war, this would be about the closest you could come to it, if you can find other historical examples like this, maybe even if you could show that 30% of wars in world history have been conducted under these or similar circumstances, I could even allow you to say that 'most wars are caused by religion', even without the majority! (I'm generous, no?) Goodluck however in this.

I disagree that the logic extends to saying things like "life, food, oxygen..." are a cause for the event. The wars commonly attributed to religion tend to not increase the warriors access to "life, food, oxygen..." Therefore, it's not reasonable to say that the pursuit of those things was a motivation for the war. On the other hand, they do tend to increase the warriors access to religious satisfaction, so it is reasonable to say that religion was a motivation (cause of behavior) for the war. The argument that a pretext and cause for war are equivalent does not extend to "life, food, oxygen..." unless "life, food, oxygen..." were being legitimately used as a pretext for war.

Edit (Misread): If the Crusaders conquer land they gain food, cattle, other material enrichment. Europe at the time was an impoverished place, this poverty was definitely a factor in motivating people to pick up and go to the exotic land of the middle east, fed by visions of wealth and glory to be had there. Whether or not they actually succeeded in obtaining these ends isn't the issue esp. seeing as they didn't ultimately succeed in their religious ends either.

Basically in like a single post we managed to devolve this into what is an appropriate definition for cause. This is something that could be delved into pretty extensively, but I won't do that. I'll just say that whenever I have used the word I am defining it in a way which is synonymous with: either "reason" or "motivation" in the context of human behavior; and either "initiator" or "enabler" in the context of a deterministic system. You can, of course, feel free to disagree.

Fair enough, if you define cause as reason or motivation, but this explanation is rife with problems as well, as there are different layers to what either of these might mean. For instance, "we must invade iraq to get the wmd" for public support/mass consumption, or the actual reasons underlying the rhetoric, which I don't claim to know, only those in power know and even then unless they have psychoanalysed eachother I doubt they even know ultimately what motivates their decisions and actions.

Ultimately I think we can agree, maybe? that religion has not been a motivating force in the majority of the world's conflicts from the dawn of human consciousness. This is not to say that religion has never helped facilitate wars, or been used as justification for wars, it has. I think anyone who is clinging to the idea that religion is the all-evil of the world and is the cause of most of historys wars is off-track and should look back with a more broad view of history to see that there are far likelier contenders to that designation. Where we will have to continue to disagree is on whether it is valid to make a distinction between a 'cause' or a 'justification'. I personally see a big difference between these two terms, the former being the private and unconscious persuasions which provoke human actions to take place, the latter as the before and after rhetoric used to facilitate those private and unconscious reasons to materialise on a broad scale and in reality. I'll repeat my example of guns, as the American gun people seem to have really honed it nicely over the years: Do guns cause violence? No. Bad people cause violence. Guns are just guns. Guns can be used to facilitate violence, but guns do not cause violence. My porcelain doll is not violent, but when my gf takes my porcelain doll and smashes it over my head you might argue that the porcelain doll is violent; me, I would say my gf is violent and she used the porcelain doll to facilitate the violence. Religion means love and devotion to God. People can use this to facilitate wars, but religion is not the cause of those wars, the people starting the wars are the cause of the wars. So yes, I see a distinction, you do not. This will have to be how it stands.

 

[nokmirt]

Facilitating isn't the same as causing. "religious devotion can become a violent act", as can anything; love, science, art, you name it, anything can be twisted to 'evil' ends. Are guns the cause of wars? No. Guns help in the prosecution of war by giving advantages. Is religion the cause of wars? No. Religion can be used to help in the prosecution of wars, in providing morale to troops, a single idea to rally behind, etc. Roman history is rife with examples of using religion in this way.

Christians commonly try to defend the Crusades as political or at least as politics being masked by religion, but IN REALITY SINCERE RELIGIOUS DEVOTION — both Muslim and Christian — played a primary role on both sides.

Remember it is a primary reason, religion itself is not the only reason. Before the Crusades began, Christians were being killed during their pilgrimages to the holy land, and Muslim incursions into Christian lands from several points. The religious leadership did step in and decided something had to be done. They began a series of religious crusades to take the holy land, beginning with that of Peter the Hermit. The aims of these crusades was religious in nature. The rewards for victory are control of religious hierarchy, with politcal and economic extra niceties, one of these would be control of the Levant. However, they did not go there for politcs or for their economy. The big reason was for their need to prove once and for all that Christianity was number one in the world, not Islam. Islam of course wanted to prove they were the best, the strongest of religions. Keep in mind that religion is so much more than just a tool, it is a way of life. Also, keep in mind the hundreds of thousands who died in these religious wars, died believing wholeheartedly, that their beliefs and way of life were better than those of their enemies. The belief and fervor, they felt for their faith was interwoven into the very fabric of the society that they lived in. I read alot, and I am a history major. I am not saying I'm right, just skeptical of your viewpoint. I do believe religion is more than just a tool for war. This is how I see it.

Just imagine the power of religion and how it drives a whole people, or peoples. It guides their very souls, in all aspects of life, even into blind rages unto lapses of conscience. The fanatical belief in religion is what caused those knights and peasants to pick up their weapons. Weapons are just tools, religion is much much more. To hear you say that of religion, that it is a mere tool, makes me feel so very low. To you, what a person feels and believes in, must mean so very little.

Still I do want to say that religion did not have influence in all wars. Of course we know that is not true. The fact remains religion still should be added to CiV, in some important form, isn't that the core of these arguments?

 

[woodshadows]

Christians commonly try to defend the Crusades as political or at least as politics being masked by religion, but IN REALITY SINCERE RELIGIOUS DEVOTION — both Muslim and Christian — played a primary role on both sides.

Remember it is a primary reason, religion itself is not the only reason. Before the Crusades began, Christians were being killed during their pilgrimages to the holy land, and Muslim incursions into Christian lands from several points. The religious leadership did step in and decided something had to be done. They began a series of religious crusades to take the holy land, beginning with that of Peter the Hermit. The aims of these crusades was religious in nature. The rewards for victory are control of religious hierarchy, with politcal and economic extra niceties, one of these would be control of the Levant. However, they did not go there for politcs or for their economy. The big reason was for their need to prove once and for all that Christianity was number one in the world, not Islam. Islam of course wanted to prove they were the best, the strongest of religions. Keep in mind that religion is so much more than just a tool, it is a way of life. Also, keep in mind the hundreds of thousands who died in these religious wars, died believing wholeheartedly, that their beliefs and way of life were better than those of their enemies. The belief and fervor, they felt for their faith was interwoven into the very fabric of the society that they lived in. I read alot, and I am a history major. I am not saying I'm right, just skeptical of your viewpoint. I do believe religion is more than just a tool for war. This is how I see it.

Just imagine the power of religion and how it drives a whole people, or peoples. It guides their very souls, in all aspects of life, even into blind rages unto lapses of conscience. The fanatical belief in religion is what caused those knights and peasants to pick up their weapons. Weapons are just tools, religion is much much more. To hear you say that of religion, that it is a mere tool, makes me feel so very low. To you, what a person feels and believes in, must mean so very little.

I like your argument, props to you; well presented and convincing. I'm even prepared to concede the point about the crusades being 'caused' by religion, in terms of being driven and motivated primarily by religious motives.

I don't think this contradicts my original thesis, that religion has not historically been a primary causative factor in the majority of world historys wars, which was really just a reaction to another posters claim that 'religion is the cause of most of historys wars'. Do you agree with this, or can you show me some compelling argument for the contrary?

 

[nokmirt]

Your first sentence there is what I am arguing. I'm not sure what history books you're reading but if you have a fairly broad knowledge of historical wars across the globe from the dawn of civilization you would too come to the conclusion that religion was not often a primary motivating cause for wars being engaged in. I am not going to elucidate upon this with every example, but some obvious ones which most people are familiar with spring to mind; the roman republic and early roman empire, the persian wars of cyrus and later alexanders conquest of, napoleonic wars, genghis khan's wars of conquest, most wars fought in east asia.. need I go on? You keep saying 'the crusades' over and over again yet don't come up with more than that. I even volunteered an obvious example of a religious war (early muslim expansion in the time of Mohammed) just to get you on the right track but you seem to have lost sight of this one and still cling to the crusades, wars which definitely were influenced and/or facilitated by religion, but weren't definitively caused by religion. Outside of this there is some sectarian fighting amongst christian europe and muslim middle east where sects are more about forming alliances than caring about religious fervour.




It is not inappropriate at all and that is your contention that he meant it only for describing physical phenomena, I would argue otherwise. I'm not sure what you missed either, there was a case in which 'final cause' most certainly does have a direct tie-in with religion being a 'cause' of a war, ala the Mohammedan conquests. Religion was the aim of those wars, the spread of that religion. I presented this example to illustrate what a proper example might be for any claim of religion being the cause of a war, this would be about the closest you could come to it, if you can find other historical examples like this, maybe even if you could show that 30% of wars in world history have been conducted under these or similar circumstances, I could even allow you to say that 'most wars are caused by religion', even without the majority! (I'm generous, no?) Goodluck however in this.



Edit (Misread): If the Crusaders conquer land they gain food, cattle, other material enrichment. Europe at the time was an impoverished place, this poverty was definitely a factor in motivating people to pick up and go to the exotic land of the middle east, fed by visions of wealth and glory to be had there. Whether or not they actually succeeded in obtaining these ends isn't the issue esp. seeing as they didn't ultimately succeed in their religious ends either.




Fair enough, if you define cause as reason or motivation, but this explanation is rife with problems as well, as there are different layers to what either of these might mean. For instance, "we must invade iraq to get the wmd" for public support/mass consumption, or the actual reasons underlying the rhetoric, which I don't claim to know, only those in power know and even then unless they have psychoanalysed eachother I doubt they even know ultimately what motivates their decisions and actions.

Ultimately I think we can agree, maybe? that religion has not been a motivating force in the majority of the world's conflicts from the dawn of human consciousness. This is not to say that religion has never helped facilitate wars, or been used as justification for wars, it has. I think anyone who is clinging to the idea that religion is the all-evil of the world and is the cause of most of historys wars is off-track and should look back with a more broad view of history to see that there are far likelier contenders to that designation. Where we will have to continue to disagree is on whether it is valid to make a distinction between a 'cause' or a 'justification'. I personally see a big difference between these two terms, the former being the private and unconscious persuasions which provoke human actions to take place, the latter as the before and after rhetoric used to facilitate those private and unconscious reasons to materialise on a broad scale and in reality. I'll repeat my example of guns, as the American gun people seem to have really honed it nicely over the years: Do guns cause violence? No. Bad people cause violence. Guns are just guns. Guns can be used to facilitate violence, but guns do not cause violence. My porcelain doll is not violent, but when my gf takes my porcelain doll and smashes it over my head you might argue that the porcelain doll is violent; me, I would say my gf is violent and she used the porcelain doll to facilitate the violence. Religion means love and devotion to God. People can use this to facilitate wars, but religion is not the cause of those wars, the people starting the wars are the cause of the wars. So yes, I see a distinction, you do not. This will have to be how it stands.

This is the opposite of how it should stand. Religion is not a porecelain doll, it is not a gun, it is certainly not a tool. Religion is also more than just love and devotion to God. Religion is encouragement, it makes you move forward, when you feel like backing away. Religion is a driving force which moves you in mysterious ways, giving you confidence and hope. Does a doll do this, does a gun?

Perhaps the following will serve as an example.

Ok I have a rifle, here I go across no mans land with my Enfield, locked and loaded. I am not adamant about my chances, because of this gun I hold. Yes it can kill a man, but I am facing all ranges of artillery, machine guns, trench mortars, barbed wire, bayonets gleaming. Blood and gas... How does my enfield help me? It does not, my religion, my faith drives me on. They give me courage when I should falter and run back to my own bloody muddy trench. The point is you do not look to your gun for answers. You look inside to what you believe in don't ya? Even if your not religious, you may believe in duty, or your leader, your country, your homeland. There is something more than just mere tools that drives men on! Indeed I am right.

I like your argument, props to you; well presented and convincing. I'm even prepared to concede the point about the crusades being 'caused' by religion, in terms of being driven and motivated primarily by religious motives.

I don't think this contradicts my original thesis, that religion has not historically been a primary causative factor in the majority of world historys wars, which was really just a reaction to another posters claim that 'religion is the cause of most of historys wars'. Do you agree with this, or can you show me some compelling argument for the contrary?

Your a really bright individual and yes I do agree with you on many of your points. Especially where we both agree that religion is not a cause of most of history's wars. In my heart, I just believe that a man is driven by many factors that cannot be seen or touched they are psychological in nature. A lot of it is how people are brought up, the lessons they learn, what motivates them etc. Religion is a tool for the character, it guides the actions of an individual. It can mold a person to fit its purposes, for good or evil. It does so much more than just wielding a gun does. Thanks for a great argument woodshadows. I have learned some things from your viewpoints, excellent writing there.

 

[woodshadows]

Thanks for a great argument woodshadows. I have learned some things from your viewpoints, excellent writing there.

Likewise