Kipp,

Are you sure you were addressing me in your last 2 posts?

I've just explained that a religious belief (even a strong one) does not constitute religion, not the belonging to this or that church.

As I raised none of those issues, perhaps you were writing to someone else?

Trav, it's easy to agree with you that human nature is the cause of war – as you say, pride, ego and the insatiable quest for power are common denominators. Maybe it's coincidence, but it is my observation that pride, ego and the insatiable quest for power are also common denominators of organised religions and many of the non-organised ones.

I do think you're overplaying your hand trying to relegate religion's contribution to wars throughout history to no more than an adopted excuse, in a very small minority of cases, on only the odd occasion.

Have you considered proving your argument from the opposite point of view?

It would be compelling evidence to cite examples from any place at any time in history where religion of any sort worked to counteract human nature and prevented war or violence.

Hi Pericles,
“I was pointing out that an absence of religious differences would have eliminated one fairly well-used justification for beating up on one's neighbour...”
Very true, but would an absence of religion eliminate or even reduce the frequency of war?
I doubt it.
As to rewriting history, as you point out the immigrant nobles to Ireland were “predominantly” Scottish. IOW, a more brief description encompassing all immigrant nobles would be “protestant”. As to turning to France for support, the English and French have been antagonists since Year Dot. (the last word on British Politics, -Yes Minister- had great material on the unending antagonism, as I recall). I also recall the IRA were happy to deal with the Germans in more recent conflicts, with no religious overtones. The enemy of my enemy... Of course, the fact that France was nominally Catholic certainly didn't hurt.
The 'Holy Crusades' on the other hand, were purely religious events.
Weren't they?
After the Vikings, Magyars etc. were drawn into the Christian fold, Western Europe had 'too many warriors, not enough wars'. To stop internecine troubles, Urban 2 offered (or was offered) up a 'common foe', in the invading Seljuqs.
It could perhaps be kept in mind that this series of conflicts began before the 'investiture controversy' , so arguably the Popes of the era were more political animals than our modern versions (after all, who would accuse modern clergymen of politicking?).
Whenever Religion is blamed for war, theists are quick to counterclaim Atheism in the persons of Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot etc, is just as culpable.
Sometimes a 'cigar is just a cigar'.
And psychopaths are just psychopaths.
If we were desperate for a one word cause for war, I think 'prejudice' might be more apt than 'religion'.
Also the tendency for people to generalise, categorise or pigeonhole. It appears in our land, the pejorative 'Leb' is being supplanted by the more encompassing 'Muslim'.
I wonder why Muslim has not yet gained a pejorative?

Trav, with the greatest respect, an alternative, ununsupportable, untestable theory does not deserve the exuberant "Yes, it does" claim that you gave it.

My point, again, was that "[human nature] does not explain why so many wars - or even individual acts of terrorism - have been completely and absolutely defined by the religious proclivities of the participants"

You responded:

>>Yes it does, because it shows that if religion didn't exist, people would simply define their wars and terrorisms using different proclivities<<

Think through the logic of that again, and you will see that it does not hang together.

We are agreed that religion is the excuse many people give for war, terrorist acts, etc.

The absence of that excuse does not "show" that the combatants would necessarily fight or kill anyway. In fact, where religion is given as the primary excuse for knee-capping your fellow citizens, for example, it is almost impossible to dream up an alternative excuse to do so that makes any sense whatsoever.

Can you think of one reason why suicide-hijackers flew those planes into the WTC, apart from their religious convictions?

>>Only a small minority of the total number of wars and violence throughout history have been "defined by the religious proclivities of the participants".<<

Small minority, large minority, some, any... all support the point I made that without religion, there would be fewer.

Grim, I suspect that you were casting around for alternative explanations for European history, in your reassessment of Catholic vs. Protestant antagonism...

>>If we were desperate for a one word cause for war, I think 'prejudice' might be more apt than 'religion'.<<

But, as you also so succinctly point out...

>>Sometimes a 'cigar is just a cigar'<<

It's interesting that humans tread a line between their self-assertive tendencies and their self-transcending ones. Although a rogue human can do a lot of damage when aggressive, it pales in comparison to the destruction wrought by collective human endeavour.

Our susceptibility to suggestion when we align ourselves with group-think allows us to jettison personal responsibility for our actions.

Arthur Koestler wrote on the polarity of self-assertive and self-transcending tendencies:

"Under normal conditions the two tendencies are in dynamic equilibrium. Under conditions of stress the self-assertive tendency may get out of control and manifest itself in aggressive behaviour. However, on the historical scale, the damage wrought by individual violence for selfish motives are insignificant compared to the holocausts resulting from self-transcending devotion to collectively shared belief-systems. It is derived from primitive identification instead of mature social integration; it entails the partial surrender of personal responsibility and produces the quasi-hypnotic phenomena of group psychology. The egotism of the social holon feeds on the altruism of its members."

>> Our susceptibility to suggestion when we align ourselves with group-think allows us to jettison personal responsibility for our actions. <<

And that is the enabler for religious atrocities and its little brother ideology.

Learning how to think independently and to have the education by which a person can question that which is irrational - such as belief with no evidence, is our best chance to attain greater peace than we have at present.

The attitude of many religious claiming they know the "truth" because of their belief in a deity is no further removed than the rationality of a child believing in Santa.

At least people grow out of believing in Santa, and I have never heard of any wars waged in his name.

" With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."