Wars and Human Suffering

[DIP]

Is the secular apologist's position that the majority of Wars and human suffering have been rooted in the name of religion valid? My intuition says no, as I can think of secular national movements and atheistic criminals who have killed out of a lust for Utopia, power and greed. However, is anyone aware of a good reference or unimpeachable source to refute this claim? With thanks in advance, DIP.

[Judah]

I would have to agree with the "secular apologist" to the extent that there have been wars which were fought in the name of religion, but not that they were "rooted in" the name of religion - nor that wars fought in the name of religion necessarily make up the majority of all wars.

I believe the source of human suffering, and the source of wars as well, to be found in the "fallen nature" of humankind. By fallen nature I am meaning that we are selfish beings who can be relied upon to make big mistakes and cause a great deal of harm to one another by them. That is our fundamental human nature, true of all human beings. And it is out of this that arises our lack of care and regard for each other, and all of our greed, self-serving aggression, hatred, etc, which leads to human suffering including wars.

So in my view then, religion may be the flag that is waved as armies march on each other, and that which is seen waving, but the real source is more fundamental than any religious banner - it is our sinful human nature itself.

This view is based on a Biblical understanding of ourselves. The reference I would give is Holy Scripture itself. Christian teaching is that we have disobeyed God, who alone is holy and righteous, the God of love and truth and justice. We are unlike Him in our natural selves - we are sinners. From our sinful natures come all these things that cause suffering and wars.

[puritan lad]

Is the secular apologist's position that the majority of Wars and human suffering have been rooted in the name of religion valid? My intuition says no, as I can think of secular national movements and atheistic criminals who have killed out of a lust for Utopia, power and greed. However, is anyone aware of a good reference or unimpeachable source to refute this claim? With thanks in advance, DIP.

Easy. Check out Nazism, Facism, and Communism in the 20th Century. More people suffered and died from Atheism in that Century alone that all of the religious wars throughout world history combined.

[DIP]

My thanks to the two people who have responded. Your comments are appreciated and useful to me. Sadly, the principal parties in this debate are not always held to the same standard of proof, i.e. an atheist or anyone hostile to Christianity can simply cite the example of "all the blood shed" in the name of God, etc., as a REASON to reject God and Religion. Obviously, this involves an error in logic and sloppy reasoning. Is there a book, some where, that spells out the loss of life under different past or present systems of power, i.e. the religious v.s. the areligious? Keep in mind, that if you point to an Islamic state, then, that would be a RELIGIOUS state. Was Nazi Germany atheistic? I can see Lenin's, Mao's or Pol Pot's particular systems of marxism and communism as being atheistic, but are there other's. And, if so, is there a handy reference work that has tallied the numbers?

[Turgonian]

I don't know what it's worth, not having gotten around to reading the article yet, but here is a long, long rebuttal to a 'Christian Crimeline'.

[Judah]

DIP, I have been searching around all the Christian apologia websites I know of to find a link or reference that might help you - but so far to no avail.
It seems to me that you might need to come at your atheist's position a different way altogether, especially as you have already noticed that there is evidence of an error in logic and sloppy reasoning.

I personally find it hard to understand a view that claims that the past behaviour of people "in the name of religion" supplies a good enough reason to reject God (presumably His existence, if the person is an atheist) and that religion. What has their behaviour got to do with the objective fact of God's existence or otherwise? If people behaved perfectly would that then prove the existence of God? How? Might this not be a straw man argument?

Since all humans make mistakes and can behave very badly, to make the most accurate judgement of any religion one needs to look at the character of the founder of that religion, not at His followers. People often get things wrong - but look at the character of Jesus and you most certainly don't see Him shedding any blood other than that of His own. However, look at Mohammad and you see a very different story for Islam.

Rather than have the atheist lead the argument (and yourself) down some errant path, perhaps attending to the lack of logic and sloppy reasoning might be a more productive way to go? Please take this as just a tentative suggestion as, of course, I do not know anything about the circumstances of the debate.

The GodandScience website has some good articles on responding to atheists and sceptics, and there are many other websites for Christian apologia that do so as well. If you need to know of them, I am happy to post some links for you.

PS. You might be interested in this: The Fall and Rise of Human Violence ~ Why crime plunged in the 17th century but is rising again in the 21st, by Berit Kjos

[DIP]

Judah, My deepest thanks for all your efforts to help shore up my apologetics foundation. Your web link was useful. The secular apologist I make reference to is a composite of the wide range of atheists I have encountered over the course of time. Overall, the fallacy of their arguments has been easy to detect and to counter. This thread, under discussion, has been a recurrent particle of "buck-shot" I have sought data on to deflect. I will keep searching, as well, and when I find it I will post it here. With God's speed.

[Canuckster1127]

Judah, My deepest thanks for all your efforts to help shore up my apologetics foundation. Your web link was useful. The secular apologist I make reference to is a composite of the wide range of atheists I have encountered over the course of time. Overall, the fallacy of their arguments has been easy to detect and to counter. This thread, under discussion, has been a recurrent particle of "buck-shot" I have sought data on to deflect. I will keep searching, as well, and when I find it I will post it here. With God's speed.

DIP,

Glad you found this material helpful and glad you are here. I hope you'll interact and contribute as well in the days ahead.

Bart