Although religion can be and is used as a pretext and justification for war, it is not the root cause. The ancestor of both humans and chimps conducted warfare, and both humans and chimps still do. The fundamental motivation for war is to acquire resources in order to reproduce, however we mask our intentions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6241250&page=1

By the time religion came into existence about 50,000 years ago, small groups of ancient humans had been raiding and exterminating one another for thousands of years. And I don't think anyone would accuse chimps of conducting warfare for religious reasons. War is part of our genetic heritage.

so......... the reason why the British travelled 2000 miles - mainly on foot - during the 12th century, was to "acquire resources"?

Hmmmmmm

EssexExMo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so......... the reason why the British travelled
> 2000 miles - mainly on foot - during the 12th
> century, was to "acquire resources"?
>
> Hmmmmmm

Actually, economics and greed played a part.

Sorry, I'm just a little confused by "the British" and "1200s"?

Is that what you're referencing?

elee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, I'm just a little confused by "the British"
> and "1200s"?
>
> Is that what you're referencing?

Richard the Lionheart and the 2nd (?) crusade

but I'm just going off memory here.

But, really, I just wanted to delve into the notion of "resources" as a motivation for the Crusades.

Yes, the call to arms was dressed quite prominently in religious rhetoric, reclaiming the Holy Land from the Infidel, that participation in the Crusades would wash away all sins, etc...

But what were they really doing there?

First, the RCC was responding to a distress call from Byzantium, who were under perpetual attack from the Turks, etc....By aiding the Byzantine (fellow Christian) Empire against Muslim attack, the RCC was both protecting prime real estate, while simultaneously creating a large buffer zone between themselves and the Turks and Muslims invading from the East and the South.

In other words, they were trying to hold onto the resources they already had while others were trying to take that real estate, and all its attached resources (trade routes in particular) back.

So although the language was quite religious all the way through the Crusades, the ultimate purpose for the Crusades was the acquisition of new resources (The Holy Land) as well as protecting real estate they already owned.

Religion just allowed them to couch their rhetoric as a religious conquest. And the Muslims, Turks, Mongols, et al were all doing the same.

is that the Muslim rulers during that era were the most enlightened (politically AND religiously, as well as in the sciences and arts) of any who have governed that region in the past 2,000 years. Christians and Jews served in high governmental positions, those who professed alternative beliefs were not persecuted or roasted at the stake by the Muslims.

But all that changed. When the Xtian tools took over, they raped, pillaged, and slaughtered indiscriminately. "Saving" the Holy Land, y'know.

And in turn, the Muslims began dismantling that very policy of religious tolerance, as they saw it, in order to survive. The Muslims also indulged in some horrendous mass murder. And not just of Crusaders, but also of indigenous Jews and Christians. C'est la guerre, I reckon.

The Crusades could also be said to have begun in earlier centuries when Europeans were trying to drive the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula, where they had conquered by the sword, and then began their campaign of tolerance and enlightenment. Conquest first. Enlightenment and tolerance after stability is achieved.

Same sh*t, different day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 02:10PM by elee.

There is a yet an unnamed internet law equivalent to Godwin's. The Crusades are inevitably invoked to prove religion's poisonous nature. (The other is the Spanish Inquisition, which was also politically motivated.)

Looked at another way, the Crusades were an excellent means for political rulers to get rid of the pesky, marauding 2nd and 3rd and 4th sons of the realm.

Makes sense to me. I believe war may have been the main reason for religion's early success. As I posted in a reply to something you wrote in another thread a couple days ago.

....Tribal warring left heroes dead. Family mourned their loss, missing their strong personality. Spurned by the sense that the dead hero still continued exerting a lot of influence on the tribe, at some point, someone created the idea that life continues in another form after death. Warriors were encouraged by tribe leaders to believe this. Those that believed in an afterlife fought harder and braver with less fear of death. Success of the hero that fought harder with this belief created a positive feedback and encouraged the belief as a positive attribute. The belief was accepted as tribe law. The tribe with these fierce warriors fought better than tribes without superstitions.

Hence, though war likely predated religion, Religion and War were married and selected for better survival. The religious tribes were more successful at surviving. Religion becomes dominant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 05:29AM by Jesus Smith.

Chimps are better at murder than we give them credit for.

Chimps are social animals, and when one is wronged, and if they have enough social clout, they are known to round up allies and chase and corner their "enemy" and murder them.

This happens with people in their own group, and has nothing to do with territory. It only has to do with being wronged.

They also do warfare for territory and resources against other groups. But what we would call first degree murder, is also on their agenda.

>
> They also do warfare for territory and resources
> against other groups. But what we would call first
> degree murder, is also on their agenda.


I would much rather be a bonobo than a chimp. The bonobos are non-violent and use sex to maintain good relationships with one another. Apparently, their lack of violence is due to not needing to compete for food, which is plentiful in their habitat.

The author of the book I am reading comments that humans can be both more violent and brutal than chimps and more empathic than bonobos, making us humans "the bipolar apes." That got a chuckle out of me.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I would much rather be a bonobo than a chimp. The
> bonobos are non-violent and use sex to maintain
> good relationships with one another.

I was talking about that with my wife just he other day. She left something at work and we had to make a 45 min. drive back to get it after a long day. Actually she didn't "know" if she left it, so there was a worry that she lost it, and losing it would have severe consequences.

Needless to say, she was worried and agitated. I mentioned to here on that drive that if we were Bonobo's, we'd just pull over and have sex, then finish the drive.

No love was invented in 1731 in Switzerland to help with sagging choco sales

I am not sure I agree with the basic premise. Does the fact that something predates something else mean that it is a root cause? I would argue that this is not the case.

Good point.
War caused religion vs religion caused war?
I think they coevolved.
I doubt there was a defined beginning of religion in social evolution. I think that religion is nothing more than your sense of universality, which would have coevolved with the intelligence to have such a sense in the first place. Thus, religion in early man was just a sense of universal right and wrong like it is now, in whatever terms existed. The chimpanzee apparently has a sense of being wronged or offended, and hence a sense of revenge or justice. Now I think the underlying biological dividend is special self-interest, i.e., gene or other "meme" replication, but as far as conscious deliberation, the warmaker rationalizes some moral cover, same as today, in terms of his "religion", loosely defined as what he thinks or pretends to think is right.
That amounts to a positive-feedback loop, in which, whatever their reason, the war winner's religion has the selective advantage, and the religion with a warring tendancy has the selective advantage.

What I am reading is religion actually developed in response to the emergence of *language* around 50,000 years ago to prevent freeloaders in foraging societies. By creating a "sacred" unassailable truth that group members participated in through ritual, the group had a mechanism for building trust and excluding violators. Later, religion was co-opted and elaborated settled societies for controlling larger groups. It's an interesting idea.

I would also point out again that *chimps* don't have religion but they do have warfare and that humans and chimps share a common ancestor and about 98% of our genes.

Call me old-fashioned but I think religion developed in response to "dancing". First we danced the we talked.

Religion is ritual, and ritual developed from physical movement well before we ever spoke.



I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance.

--Friedrich Nietzsche--
--Thus Spake Zarathustra--


robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I am reading is religion actually developed
> in response to the emergence of *language* around
> 50,000 years ago to...

My own belief is that religion is a much higher order process. Dogs, cows, birds, all kinds of animals become territorial and fight each other.

But they don't all have religion. It seems to take a bigger brain to get religion.

My own thoughts are that religion is a way to "explain the unexplainable". Things like, what happens to the people that I care about when they die? So early on humans started burying things with their dead and giving death meaning. Cows don't do such.

Religion comes from such things I think.

...war is political, even religious wars are political.

Politics preceeds religion. Before we are a religious species we are a political species.

(And by the way, viva la revolucion, Egypt!)

When did religion start? When Adam and Eve were expeled from the Garden?

Cain killed Abel soon after... my answer is religion predates evolution.

Murder 50,000 years ago -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32042037/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Ritual burials and evidence of ceremonies at that time too.

I agree war is what happens to obtain resources from others (for survival and more).

Sometimes war is the result of surplus males from some biological aspects. If a few alpha males are in control and have the females, what does the culture do with the extra males? This is more controversial. I'm not sure how biology could back this up but it might be a factor in warring.

So how does religion play into war? It provides the justification and mechanism to dehumanize those outside the religion. This removes the conscience from the religious warriors: they have god's approval so they can have a cause. It's easier to have a motive of religion than admitting they are killing to obtain resources for their tribe to breed.

What came first? Fighting over conflict or involving supernatural justification? I'd guess many species before man fought for resources. Man just invented better tools like religion and guns that made war more efficient. If you removed guns and religion and had to fight by throwing rocks, war wouldn't be as complicated but it would still exist.

Religion is ONE tool used for war, and it is a big one.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree war is what happens to obtain resources
> from others (for survival and more).
>
> Sometimes war is the result of surplus males from
> some biological aspects. If a few alpha males are
> in control and have the females, what does the
> culture do with the extra males? This is more
> controversial. I'm not sure how biology could back
> this up but it might be a factor in warring.
>
> So how does religion play into war? It provides
> the justification and mechanism to dehumanize
> those outside the religion. This removes the
> conscience from the religious warriors: they have
> god's approval so they can have a cause. It's
> easier to have a motive of religion than admitting
> they are killing to obtain resources for their
> tribe to breed.
>
> What came first? Fighting over conflict or
> involving supernatural justification? I'd guess
> many species before man fought for resources. Man
> just invented better tools like religion and guns
> that made war more efficient. If you removed guns
> and religion and had to fight by throwing rocks,
> war wouldn't be as complicated but it would still
> exist.
>
> Religion is ONE tool used for war, and it is a big
> one.

Religion is one excuse for war but hardly the only one. If people want to go to war, they will find an excuse. So far, the few atheistic societies we have haven't shown any great gift for peace either.I really don't think religion is that big a factor in most cases.

dagny Wrote:

> Religion is ONE tool used for war, and it is a big
> one.

I agree. At the same time religion, as an early form of civil government, helped make it possible for humans to live in large groups, which necessitated a reduction in aggression. Religion discouraged aggression toward members of one's own group, although it often (not always) permitted or encouraged aggression toward out groups.

I think we can consider removing religion from the equation *now* because we have developed civil authority, institutions, and values that have replaced the functions that religion once provided. However, religion still remains important to a great many people and remains and possible source of good. In any case, we have to deal with religion and I don't see it gotten rid of.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 03:22PM by robertb.

The thing is that all of the so called religious wars are about things other than religion as well-such as greed, territory etc. Many wars have been between people of similar or the same religion. The World Wars, the American Revolution, the Civil War, the War of the Roses, the Wars between the Greek States in ancient times, the numerous Roman Civil Wars etc are all examples of wars that had little or nothing to do with religion. There are many others as well. The Crusades, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, The Arab Israeli Conflict and many more so called religious wars are also about politics. These people wouldd still have problems if one side converted or if both gave up religion altogether.Blaming wars on religion especially without factoring in other causes is extremely simplistic and most of the people who do so have not studied history in any depth.

Another point is that most animals and not just primates are very terrirtorial. It is inbred. You should hear my little fur balls when someone comes near. We are animals and we are also territorial.