You often hear, "most wars are caused by religion". Well, turns out to be a myth. Philip and Axelrod*s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Out of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature, 6.98 percent of all wars. 7% isn't even close to 100%. I remember George Carlin saying it in his comedy routine. I believed it. I've heard teachers say it. I've heard a lot of people say it. But, like George Washington and the cherry tree, some things we hear about turn out to be wrong. === You're free to hold onto antiquated beliefs if you like. But Jonathon, it's an encyclopedia of wars. Scholarship. Highly tauted. Could it all be a lie? Sure it can. But it's better than an oft-repeated baseless assertion that "sounds nice" but doesn't appear to be correct such as "most religions are caused by war". === I can't go through time to witness these wars first hand. I have to base my trust on some authority. The encyclopedia of wars chronicles 1500+ wars in short detail. The statistic comes from that source, based on their research. Seems legit to me. Might not be. But they make a stronger case than the same ol' thing that ppl have been saying since the 19th century about religion + war... an idea that never had much backing at all in the first place. == You might have to consider that everything you believe about this could simply be wrong. It's quite possible you know. You still have other great arguments you can make regarding religion and how bad it is. Just let this one go. == How is that choosing ignorance? Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit pre-conceived notions is ignorance. But studying it to decide is not ignorance. == So, do you believe we create our histories as we along only to support agendas that support our needs in the present moment? == Some but not entirely. That's another myth. There's many overlapping cultures, Jonathon and overlapping historical accounts. There's also different perspectives such as archeology with its own narratives. So, the "only the winners write the history" is true in a limited nationalistic sense, but as more and more information comes in and is available, the better our opportunity for better historical accounts come into play --- *if* the historians do their job properly and of course, not all do, but I believe many earnestly try. == The comforting lie that I keep hearing seems to be, "Most wars are caused by religion" when they don't appear to be. * You can call it historical revisionism if you like but here's http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Wars-Volume-Library-History/dp/0816028516 1500+ pages of evidence with which to consider the slimmest, minutest possibility that maybe... just maybe.. you'll be better off relying on OTHER arguments as to "why religion is bad for people", if that is what you wish to do, than this one. == *That's what historians attempt to do: tease apart the spaghetti mess of history to come up with more-or-less accurate narratives that are "least biased" as they're capable of doing. They try.*I don't know the politics here much. I know they're pro small business which is nice for me. There is no state taxes, which I also appreciate. They pretty much leave me alone. I barely know there's a government here.*Then again, I barely knew there was one in New Jersey, except there were always taxes on things. Beyond that? Neither state's governments seemed to affect my life in too many ways that mattered much to me. Maybe to others. == *I'm all for a secular government. But your criteria doesn't do much for assisting determination of causation in historical record. == I was only speaking of the single often repeated bit of mythology:"Most wars are caused by religion".It's a modern day myth. It's repeated a lot. It appears to be wrong.The rest of it? I'm not referring to. Just this one thing. == *Yeah - I think it's best to live by a University with a decent history department to get access to it... although of course there's likely a PDF floating around somewhere, as there always is... not that I'm recommending (or not) such activities that I may or may not participate in.As far as politics goes, it's not generally my thing. I have other battles I like to fight; accuracy in Science is a big one for me (I like a self-conscious Science) but there's other things I also find important to fight about. But there's enough other ppl worried about such things about whether or not we're becoming a theocracy or not that I don't have to think about it.The moment I read that we're really an oligarchy I just kinda threw my hands up. I suspected it was true but then I saw the numbers and I was like, "ok, yeah, figures". == *Common for you and me and George Carlin (where I got my "Most war is caused by religions" idea from - I believed it was true) but Axelrod is a war historian. It's his job to at least TRY to be as accurate as possible. == *Of course he *could* be wrong. Being an expert doesn't prove anything in itself. But its an opinion that carries more weight than my favorite 80s comedian. == *They would, although to be honest, there's probably far better arguments than a mythological religion-war connection that really doesn't seem to be there much at all.Hanging onto it, even in a weakened form, would seem to weaken a case rather than strengthen.To me, it'd be better for those who wish to make their cases, to stick with the strong points. == *Point two? That's a harder case to make.To me, it seems better to abandon a war/religion connection and use other points that show religion-is-bad as the "primacy of consciousness" seems a little weaker than "Most war is caused by religion" was.But that's just my opinion. I suppose it depends on the audience. I just try to figure out likely-enough truths and go with them; even here, I'm sharing because I was surprised (as it went against what I'd always heard but never questioned) and it's an interesting topic. = *You asked for number of deaths. "How many war deaths".I'm sure it's possible to go with "percent of population" and population densities and such as well, but NOW you're asking different questions that are more specific.The logic checked out to the question you asked. But you can go deeper if you by asking DIFFERENT questions like these. == *You can hang on to it if you like - you can find assertions of causation for any reason if you ask around enough. Some people these days blame the environment for the cause of most war. Same idea.Which narrative do you pick? Your choice of course.But an "encyclopedia of wars" that's published as factual materials for schools from elementary through University, by the "Facts on File" people.... _does_ lead it some credibility, as the[1]http://www.infobasepublishing.com*Infoplease people are competing with OTHER publishers of Fact Information such as Oxford and Cambridge and the like.Go with Wikipedia if you like and a smattering of historians but it's a strong commitment to publish something as "Facts" if one is just pushing a statistical agenda.But carry on believing as you wish Harry. == *He may. But*[2]http://www.infobasepublishing.comis the publisher - all they publish is Facts.... and supply millions of materials for education from 5 years old through University and Public libraries."Facts On File is an award-winning publisher of print, eBooks, and online reference materials for the school and library market. We specialize in core subject areas, such as history, science, literature, geography, health, and more. Our print titles are authoritative references geared toward the high school, academic, and public library markets. Our highly regarded, curriculum-based online products include reference and news service databases, eLearning Modules, and streaming video. Facts On File has nearly 70 years of service to librarians backing our editorial content and decisions."So, you'll have an uphill battle to climb if you wish to battle facts. == * As a kid, my minister (Methodist) said it during a sermon. George Carlin said it in his comedy. My teachers said it. Who questioned it?I'm glad to get better information now. == *hehe the 2nd try was better - thank you smile emoticon I'm just trying my best here. I don't like misrepresentations of history - I mean, history is hard enough as it is to get straight and portrayals of history to promote points of view are things I rally against 'cause I like history, the good, the bad, the ugly, the complicated, the messy, the conflicting stories.and... I usually pick my battles with intelligent people because if you're gonna get 98% right about things, might as well shoot for 99-100% if you can smile emoticon = *Oh of course and absolutely 100% agreed.But.... ... I don't see an Indian Encyclopedia of Wars volume out there to compete with it. So... ...I have to go with the "best in class" that's available.It's thorough, respected in its field, strong source material that's well researched.I'd LOVE to see the same material produced from multiple perspectives: Someday, I'd hope to see every culture produce their own world histories and have them side-by-side for comparison.But... when it comes to academically accepted war categorization... this is the best "everything" book available at the moment that I'm aware of.I hope you can find another perspective that's equally thorough for proper comparison. == *we're talking about two different things here. The history of all wars across the span of measures human history vs the past 60 yrs. different results are reasonable. I said nothing of flawlessness. But it's published by the Facts on File ppl. These ARE considered factual. Also I suspect you could look at the same source material and might find out that it corroborates with the increases you mention from other authors in this small time slice. I'm not down playing its significance just that we're measuring different things here. == In short Brett *i* have no defensive bias to admit here. If you can see one I'm unaware of please tell me. == *Indeed. The benefit of a proper scientific research allows for a hypothesis such as "religion causes war" with the humility to compel one to report novel results unanticipated at the outset.Of course, reality's different even within the Sciences; studies that merely confirm bias by "going through the motions" of precision work without striving for accurate results (thanks to confirmation bias, which is all too human) happens frequently enough, but in principle, scientific skepticism is sound enough.So, I don't expect everyone to follow the methodology.Still, I find "self-skepticism" a healthy-mode of operation. For me, I don't like hanging onto ideas that are offbase or leaning in the wrong direction. I prefer being "more correct" when possible, although "all correct" may itself be unlikely. Still, a worthy goal in itself I think smile emoticon == *for an example of a systematic, scientific evaluation of causation in International War and Conflict.[3]http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/note13.htmNow in this case, the author is attempting the make the study of International War and Conflict mathematical, logical, applying best-of-class tools, for almost a "physics of war" point of view.I looked for religion-as-cause. In this treatment, couldn't find it, although it's possible it may be hiding under a broader category somehow if you search enough through the concepts.I'm not showing this as a proof that the OP is correct in a 100% fashion about its estimation of 7%.Rather, I'm showing that there is *great difficulty* and much rigor in attempting to determine causation and simplistic notions such as "People blindly following [x] about [y] vs [y] following about [x]= [war]" are ultimately ridiculous notions to try to hang onto. == Here is a nice treatment of the [4]http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/dpf.chap35.htm relationship between humanity and nature from various world perspectives, including our own biases. == * Indeed. I like this example because it's from an older text - seems to be from about 40 years ago, yet reading through it, it sounds like something that belongs in a physics textbook. I like the rigor and from what I can recall about trends-in-scholarship over time, this kind of analytical perspective was extremely popular for the time.A lot has shifted since then and I'm not saying that this approach is the best/worst/better/not-as-good -- I can't put it on that kind of scale. I see the benefits of post-modernist analysis as well, just as I do reading nationalistic accounts.Foucault was definitely on-the-mark when he talks about the overlapping grid-view of historical influencing of our very studies and the difficulties of the covering-up of some areas while illuminating other areas.....or, in short, he was "on-the-mark" in showing the DIFFICULTY of even BEING "on-the-mark" smile emoticonBut the main thing is to me: scholarship is not simple. In cases like War, getting things right can be crucial, for it's not merely a study of history for a school class, but it's discovering necessary patterns to help nations PREDICT future behaviors and help in future strategies that can save lives, increase peace, reduce war.This naive belief that has arisen over time that "a better tomorrow will be caused by removal of religion today" is, to me, shallow silliness. Brett is a very smart guy whose opinions I highly respect yet this is precisely the reason why I'm taking the time to say all that I'm saying:I'd like to be called out on it when I'm holding onto a silly notion and I assume other intelligent people *also* appreciate it ultimately, even if the process of getting there can sometimes take a while. == * ultimately don't expect your agreement. I'm not looking to "win a debate" here. It's ultimately an exercise in critical thinking and self-analysis. Confirmation bias is VERY difficult to recognize - it can be nearly impossible once one has adopted a worldview as their own - yet that's why I'm typing all of these words. == *Sean Carroll... didn't he make a revision of the "Big Bounce" idea? [that the Universe never quite makes it to zero but instead of just bounces big and small, but I think he utilizes anti-time rather heavily rather than the prior alternations of bang/crunch/bang/crunch based on ideal gas notions?]Well, regardless - if if I don't agree all of his results (including his views on religion, which I think are a little simplistic) nevertheless, the basic idea of the importance of being skeptical of one's self and one's ideas *is* a very important one. It's especially important in his field because they're dealing with the most fictional and speculative side of the sciences but it's equally true of any of the sciences, or of good scholarship in general. == *Ah that's right. I'm a few years rusty [I've had an on and off obsession with theoretical physics for a long time... and an ongoing fascination with the nature of Time, both in physics and in other fields] and had pegged him in the wrong slot.I'll have to give him another listen. I've gotten so Dawkins and Hitchens'd out through the years that I rarely can give any of them much of a listen anymore. I thought Sam Harris had potential but, alas, no. Same kinds of errors.If you have a good example of his work (video/writing) handy regarding atheism, I'll give it a look. == *Thank you. I'll give it a listen and present my analysis at some point today. I like looking for hidden bias and highlighting, not to falsify (true/false 'fact' criteria is sometimes too simple for complicated issues - even the flip/flop states within a computer are ripe with issues because there *is* an analog state of "inbetween" - physical systems always have physical problems as do human reasoning systems].I discover their biases, apply what I've learned to my own and hopefully get stronger in my quest for "least biased as possible" viewpoint. It's actually quite fun. == * I'm two minutes in and a few comments. Usually someone's biases are clear early and their arguments follow from their biases. He's very good n that he is clear, honest and forthright about WHAT he's doing and WHY he's taking that route. He's aware he's taking a simple route, apologizing for it, and then says he's going to take it anyway.So, kudos for the honesty and self-awareness.Misleadings: God is not a good theory. The title contains a few issues that he explains in these first two minutes:He sees it as ok to assume that the idea of God can be treated scientifically as he believes the idea of God is close enough across the board in most religions (analogous enough) that it can be treated the same everywhere.I'm glad he mentioned, "There's this other idea that the God concept is powerful precisely -because- it can't be defned in this way" and mentioned that he won't be taking that route.Honesty. I admire that.He's apologetic in his Apologetics smile emoticon It's a good approach.He also takes "theory" and uses it neither in the Scientific sense of theory _nor_ does he use it in a common-usage way, but he makes up his OWN definition of Theory:an idea that can be proven True or False.It's not an unreasonable approach though but again, he's clear about the limitations he's presenting.A few seconds more into it, he's clear that he's only going to be talking about a very _specific_ view of God, and likely not the audience's FAVORITE version of God.Again, applauding the forthrightness. He's aware he's going to be taking on a journey showing what's likely the worst examples of a God idea and proving it false.. which, to be honest, isn't likely all that difficult to do. Even growing up in the Methodist church, we learned about some ideas about God that were very misleading and to avoid them ourselves and I _suspect_ he'll be characterising as false the same views of God I was taught were misleading approaches.Nevertheless, just 3 minutes into it now, he's exposing his bias nakedly and clearly and apologizing for it, without mocking those who do not agree with his bias. Bravo and I believe he is taking the best approach here.I'll let you know if I have further thoughts but as bias was my main concern rather than true/false, he gets high marks on form and delivery, even if I do not agree with his premises. Thank you for showing him to me - I'll watch more. like emoticon == I skipped around a bit because within just a few words I could see what his arguments were likely to be for some of it. Stopped at his opinion the finely-tuned argument - and I'm very grateful he takes the position he does: a very reasonable position that successfully (to me) discusses both Christian apologists and multiverse apologists who alike argue the "fine-tunedness" of everything either as proof of multiverse or proof of God - and whichever one is trying to prove, neither one does so successfully.In his conclusions, however, he makes a strange assumption (to me), that if Scripture was written by God he says something like, "I would imagine that such a God would have told us ..." and then describes desirable modern values... and because those values are NOT in Scriptures, this leads to a falsification of the God theory.I find that to be very strange for a number of reasons.Religions based _solely_ upon scripture-alone are actually a rather modern concept in the history of religions - this idea that you can take a text and create a system. it seems, rather that the systems and the texts emerged hand-in-hand with each other. It's only thanks to modern (300 yr old perhaps) ideas that groups have popped up all over that attempted to apply this "sticking to the text only" notion (I think it's rationalism? not sure which movement started its popularity), allowing anybody to interpret text-as-it-is WITHOUT the support of a culture, a history, a people, and a self-consciousness of the process.So, perhaps this argument _could_ wipe out a number of modern God concepts that are text-only based, but does little to touch those religions whose knowledge can't be reconstructed by a single text, or even a multiple of texts but are passed on through other means such as tradition or song or culture or art or numerous other ways that go beyond a single holy book or two.Still, he was honest and forthright. It struck me as a bit naive and he was using very simple arguments in his proofs.But it's definitely one of the better attempts I've seen at providing a persuasive argument. I have other issues I could take with it but the clarity of "this is what I know. This is what I dont know. I am not looking down this pathway. I am only going down this other pathway. My choices will affect my conclusions and I am working within my biases, which are these..." - means that he has already addressed most of them already.If I was an atheist and wanted to be persuasive to convince another to join, I'd use this video.[This is not perfect by any means [his three value split of "types of God" I could blast right through it if I wanted to with some Orthodox Christian theology I know] - I honestly have no need to - I don't have a point to prove. My final take is that he's done the best he can do with what he knows and has been as honest as he can be at how he has reached his conclusions]. == *^ as someone who is agnostic, not atheist and haven't found convincing arguments yet, nevertheless, I was impressed by Sean Carroll's approach.If you wish to convince [even though I was not ultimately convinced] - I think his methodology, delivery, style - these are worth emulating. He's taking a good approach in my opinion.Ultimately, I don't have too much issue with someone attempting to promote their worldviews that are favorable to them. But I am critical of sloppiness, slogans and an unselfconscious zeal. If you know and express your biases in some way, you can get a lot further in your quest, whatever that may be. === * It does. He captures a lot of territory. Consider this though: mature theologies - and there's really only a few out there for various religions that I've seen - ALSO successfully eliminate the bulk of other God ideas.the main difference I see here is the end-product:a) Mature theology successfully shows the God idea of everybody else is flawed, pointing that theirs is likely correct. b) Carroll's argument successfully shows the God idea of everybody else is flawed, pointing that his is likely correct.In short, Carroll is presenting a theology. Carroll is a theologian for atheism as he is presenting his idea of God as superior to the rest. == *He's engaging in proper apologetics for his religion (by religion, I speak of the general term of religion, not the specific supernatural term) and does so quite well, which is why I give him a gold star. Honestly, the first I've seen to do so well and I've seen a lot of people try to convince. == *Now I confess to a bias as to my worldview: I am agnostic - I'm not a believer neither am I not - I'm not doubting or skeptical. Just don't know enough to say either way.HOWEVER, I see the Abrahamic religions differenty since my exposure with the Orthodox.The way the tree is drawn out may change depending on perspective but it is more or less how I see the history of Abrahamic religions now. Growing up, it was Methodist. All groups seemed more or less equal. We happened to go there 'cause it was nicer than the Catholic church in town - the only two choices, and my mother didn't care WHAT religion we got really, so long as it was good enough.So, to me, all more or less the same. I gained even MORE of that same perspective when I was looking into Unitarian Universalist. [in fact I've sent many Atheists t References Visible links 1. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infobasepublishing.com%2F&h=RAQHHVW8h 2. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infobasepublishing.com%2F&h=PAQFzidJN 3. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mega.nu%2Fampp%2Frummel%2Fnote13.htm&h=eAQE7NhSB 4. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mega.nu%2Fampp%2Frummel%2Fdpf.chap35.htm&h=wAQEFPtfo