BBC iWonder: Would the world be more peaceful without religion?

[trotsky]

An interactive/multimedia presentation by the BBC, with a chance to vote for your opinion at the end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p

[Warpy]

1. The world would be more peaceful without zealots

If no one believed in unseen powers, the zealots among us would just pick something else to fight about.

You know, like vegetarianism versus being omnivores or smoking versus non smoking.

Oh, wait....

[trotsky]

2. Yeah but how many vegetarians have killed omnivores simply for being omnivores? n/t

[Warpy]

3. Deny them religion

and they will.

Zealots have a total lack of personal boundaries and go absolutely nuts when people live their lives outside their rules, whatever they happen to be.

[trotsky]

6. Is there anything in vegetarianism that mentions a supreme vegetarian and tells us what it wants?

I think we need to note that on this topic, I don't think anyone claims that if there were no religion, there would be no conflict. Obviously we are always going to disagree and fight over resources. But looking at the content of the page, it seems clear religion has some unique qualities that can foment and exacerbate conflict.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. I would have voted "maybe" if they let me...

The two world wars were not about religion, nor was Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot. Were Ghengis Khan or Alexander taking over the known world to expand a religion? The Spanish came to the New World preaching, but it was still mainly about the gold and everyone else came here just for the bucks.

We killed off native americans and went to war with Spain and Mexico for land, not religion. And religion had a very small place in two wars with England.

And so it goes. Wars are expensive, bloody things that zealots may crave, but happen when power or money are at stake.

[whatthehey]

5. Probably?

It's never been seen in history, or, as far as we can tell, in the bits of prehistory where we have any anthropological clues as to social mores.

I guess it would depend on if religion died a natural death, as it seems to be approaching in a few parts of the world, or if it were oppressively squelched as a few totalitarian parts of the world have at least tangentially attempted. Obviously the latter has higher risk. While there is not much point in becoming an atheist martyr, the believers tend to be much fonder of that route than I'd like, and quite often not keen on being martyred alone.

It is a bit naive to assume nothing would move into that little psychologiocal niche though. Nationalism, unyielding ideology, tribalism and cults of personality haven't exactly being universally benign when people have looked to them to get a sense of purpose, belonging, and relationship to a cause greater than themselves instead of using religion for those purposes. But that said, societies where we see the lowest religiosity currently haven't turned into Klingons yet. China isn't exactly a benign hotbed of cooperative democracy and progress but it's closer than it used to be, and Sweden's not far off as the #2 least religious nation. What replaced religion in Sweden et al? Buggered if I know, but if the rest of the world gets the same deal we should be ok.

[mr blur]

7. These days? Definitely.

And on that note...

[rug]

8. Yes, the world would be an enlightened place of logic and reason

and you could contentedly cluck yourself to sleep every evening free forever from the bogeyman.

[Lordquinton]

9. Hard to say

but at least there wouldn't be any conflict over whose imaginary friend can play dominoes better.