Evolving beyond religious violence
Discussion Actions
What are your thoughts on how we can evolve past religious violence?
Lately I’ve been thinking about two ideas- 1. Hector Avalos’s scarce resource theory. Here’s an abbreviated version then I’ll put a full quotation below under references. "Most violence is the result of scarce resources, real or perceived. … every conflict I’ve ever seen has a scarce resource at the bottom. … when religion causes violence, it does so because it has created new scarce resources somewhere. …[for example] the idea that God reveals himself in one set of texts…”
2. In one of his books Neil Postman used a phrase “clear their path” which I’ve taken to mean that the monotheistic or exclusive religions clear their path by insisting that they have the only truth. Let’s say the exclusive religions have been taken over by …I’ll call it the only-truth-meme. In terms of evolution, this meme has been extraordinarily successful but also extremely violent. Because we are a global society now, the only-truth-meme no longer serves the interests of the whole. (Something like the Lizard Legacy if left unchecked).If we put the two ideas together at an interfaith conference, one thing we could do is “clear a path” of religiously based scarce resources. Or clear a space of the only-truth-meme. For example, clearing a ritual field would mean confirming to everybody that no religion has the exclusive truth about God. Interfaith conferences probably do this in some form already. Question: how to take this ritual field and extend it into the everyday life of a religion?
Re-interpretation is one way. TGFE page 202: “Given what we now know about deep-time creativity and grace, we can no longer in good conscience continue interpreting the story of Jesus’ birth, life, teachings, passion, death, and resurrection as primarily having to do with saving a select group of human beings from the fires of a literal hell when they die. ” And page 203: “Salvation must be available, as well, to those who cannot give their assent to literal interpretations of the Christian doctrines of virgin birth, resurrection, ascension, and so forth…”
References
Neil Postman phrase from the Narratives chapter of Building a Bridge to the 18th Century.
Hector Avalos quote from Freethought Radio podcast 6/2/07,
discussing his book "Fighting Words” (subtitled The Origins of Religious Violence):
“Most violence is the result of scarce resources, real or perceived. Whenever people perceive that there’s not enough of something they value then conflict may ensue to maintain or acquire that resource. So, just to give you an example, if there’s not enough love in a family people may tend to fight about that. Whoever has that love may want to keep it and the person who doesn’t have enough of it wants it. Respect in a couple can be a scarce resource. One has more of it than the other. Water can be a scarce resource on a global scale. Energy is. All those things… every conflict I’ve ever seen has a scarce resource at the bottom. And that goes from the smallest scale of human organization to the largest.
The second premise of my book is: when religion causes violence, it does so because it has created new scarce resources somewhere. So, in particular I argue that in the Abrahamic traditions- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- you have four scarcities that have caused violence over and over for the last two or three thousand years. And the four are 1 the idea that God reveals himself in one set of texts or books and not in every text. The second is sacred space: the idea that some spaces are more valuable than the surrounding spaces. Like the Holy Land. Group privilege is the third: where a group believes they have special privileges by virtue of belonging to a religion that others don’t. And the fourth one is salvation which can be variable but it describes some kind of commodity that people think they have on a more permanent basis when they belong to a particular group. Eternal life would be one- you get eternal life by belonging to, say, Christianity.
So, in the case of sacred space, you can see how the scarcity drives conflict. For example in the Holy Land, so called, there is no oil there. There is no large agricultural production. The whole value of that space has been created by the religious belief that it’s valuable.”
7 Responses
-
-
John, excellent point. The most devout Christian I know is very tolerant and respectful of others who are not Christian. I’ll see if he has anything interesting to say about nonviolence.
I see tolerant one-ways as lucky because they have the knack of balancing the best of both. They have that steady certainty about them but don’t take it to the extreme.
What are some differences between tolerant and intolerant one-ways? Intolerants feel threatened by other belief systems and are more likely to have a victim mentality. Tolerants are more flexible and more in control- they haven’t been taken over by the only-truth meme.
On converting everyone to a many-truths perspective: I hadn’t thought that far but the first thing that stands out is the irony of clearing out the meme which clears a path for its “one truth.” It would be a situation similar to being intolerant of intolerance- you’re still left with intolerance.
What about including a small area and/or a short sermon in a church or religious setting and dedicating it to confirming that “we have OUR truth, no religion has THE ultimate truth.”? Or something similar.
I just thought of a new question (and a dilemma if the answer is yes). Do religions operate more effectively if they teach their truth as THE only truth?
-
On “only truth” religions, Huston Smith made this comparison:
“If we think of our major religions in the west- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- they are all exclusive of one another. If we were going to diagram them, why we might think of Judaism as a square, Christianity a circle, and Islam as a triangle. Well, you can put these together so they touch one another but they don’t integrate. Whereas traditions in China- Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism as they imported it- fit together very differently. They fit together more like a jigsaw so they really do fit together. Traditionally every Chinese was a Confucianist, a Taoist, and a Buddhist at the same time… There was no conflict because on state occasions… everybody was a Confucianist. When disease fell they would turn to the Taoists… And then when death comes, that’s the time for the Buddhist priest.” (end of quote)
If we picture each exclusive religion as a bounded field with a scarce resource (sacred text/holy place) at the center, that center started out as a positive center to build around. Now one gets the sense that they have all three become negative centers in some way. Centers of conflict. Something to mull over and explore- something that needs the language of analogy or poetry for the fullest understanding. I think part of the explanation is related to alignment with the whole- for example if there are several people who think their way is the only way then how will they align? It’s possible if they are tolerant one-ways.
One thing we’ll need to keep in mind is from TGFE page 75: Thomas Berry cautions that we will not be able to move into an ecologically sustainable future on the resources of the existing religious traditions- and we can’t get there without them.
-
In my humble opinion, the only way mankind might ever evolve beyond religious superiority/violence is to first of all recognize and accept that there is indeed a power higher than man; and that whoever/whatever that power is, is in control, not man!
That unseen (spirit/intelligence) power is in control of all evolution – physical and spiritual. The bad news is that power hungry men and women will never understand that because they don’t want to understand it – after to understand and embrace it might detract from their own imagined power.
But there is also good news! The good news is that those growing numbers of people the world over who are searching for understanding will, as long as they continue searching, eventually find it.
It will become increasingly necessary for people to begin to understand their common spiritual ancestry as well as their common physical ancestry, or religious superiority/violence will continue to plague mankind forever. It must be realized and internalized that while we may be made of stardust, we are also seeded within with a natural yearning, and innate desire for more than the physical reality our five senses perceive. I suppose I would label myself as a modern Christian Gnostic.
-
Janice wrote:
“In my humble opinion, the only way mankind might ever evolve beyond religious superiority/violence is to first of all recognize and accept that there is indeed a power higher than man; and that whoever/whatever that power is, is in control, not man!
That unseen (spirit/intelligence) power is in control of all evolution – physical and spiritual.”Or that higher power has given us a degree of freedom and therefore partial control. I like this from page 30: “Theologian Gordon Kaufman has offered a striking term that reminds us of this fanciful, fluky aspect of the evolutionary epic. He calls the process underlying it all “serendipitous creativity.” That puts us in partnership with the divine – yes? Not masters of our fate, but partners, groping our way forward.”
Janice wrote:
“It will become increasingly necessary for people to begin to understand their common spiritual ancestry as well as their common physical ancestry, or religious superiority/violence will continue to plague mankind forever.”You have me wondering how far back we’d have to go to find common spiritual ancestry. I checked out The Universe Story by B. Swimme and T. Berry and haven’t had much time to get into it but it does have a timeline towards the back of the book:
3,500 B.C.E. Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia.
3,300 B.C.E. Chronic warfareIt didn’t take long after the first civilizations for chronic warfare to appear! I’m no expert of course but can’t help taking a guess that to search for a common spiritual ancestry we’d have to look at the Neolithic Village period, roughly 10,000 to 3,500 B.C.E.
-
Here’s a simple idea for the religious violence issue: those who proclaim a connection with God must actually behave in a religious or compassionate way and are not allowed to engage in violence. I quickly realized it’s an unworkable idea because it doesn’t acknowledge the fact that some religions have successfully evolved and spread because they are more aggressive, more violent, than other religions.
Somehow we need to find a way to transform, transmute, or channel the violent urges. Does this idea from page 157 apply to religious violence?: “Forcefully trying to eliminate the shadow side of our reptilian, mammalian, and hominoid instincts – what could be called our “unchosen nature” – is neither realistic not desirable. Rather, evolutionary psychologists invite us to channel those troublesome energies in safe and productive ways, while consciously strengthening drives that promote our individual and collective well-being.”
-
* Carl LaFong says:
Here’s a simple idea for the religious violence issue: those who proclaim a connection with God must actually behave in a religious or compassionate way and are not allowed to engage in violence. I quickly realized it’s an unworkable idea because it doesn’t acknowledge the fact that some religions have successfully evolved and spread because they are more aggressive, more violent, than other religions.Somehow we need to find a way to transform, transmute, or channel the violent urges. Does this idea from page 157 apply to religious violence?: “Forcefully trying to eliminate the shadow side of our reptilian, mammalian, and hominoid instincts – what could be called our “unchosen nature” – is neither realistic not desirable. Rather, evolutionary psychologists invite us to channel those troublesome energies in safe and productive ways, while consciously strengthening drives that promote our individual and collective well-being.”
brilliant! i just heard a radio talk show host refer to our “unchosen nature” as “the way god made us” and insinuating that we have no control over that, and that’s ok…? this goes along with the idea that a higher power is THE sole driver of our destiny instead of it being a partnership between the “god” and free will.
i must say that i agree with you John, that it’s a stretch that a “many paths, many truths” perspective will ever be the standard, but i also don’t see that religious “tolerance” will ever move our interfaith visions forward. from what i can gather “tolerance” only means don’t tread on me and i won’t tread on you, but has no real future together, thus ALWAYS leaving the door open to violence or hate.
i believe that interfaith dialogue between community faith leaders and the becoming of those discussions into the congregations is the only way to break through in masses. i hope to be at the forefront of those types of transformations in my community soon….let this be the start!
Carl, I’ve been working with an interfaith group in Ann Arbor MI for a while now, and just recently, at a planning retreat, we concluded that the key to this issue was identifying “one way, one truth” pastors and congregants who are ALSO tolerant. (They do exist!) Converting everyone to a “many paths, many truths” perspective (clearing out the only-truth meme) just won’t happen, not in our lifetime or in many lifetimes down the road.
If we could hear from tolerant one-way folks how they recognize, “handle,” and even honor good people on other paths, we might uncover some untapped resources. I think we’d have a better shot at nonviolence. We hope at least to take a crack at the idea in the year ahead.
Be well, John