The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of 1572 saw a series of assassinations and waves of violence against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants), during the French Wars of Religion.
A common complaint by secular humanists, usually directed at Christianity, has been that religion has been the primary cause of war and oppression throughout history. Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, says that faith and religion are the most prolific source of violence in our history. Religion, however, isn’t going anywhere; the World Religion Database expects there to be a net gain of over a billion Christians, and a net loss of almost 2 million Agnostics and more than 4 million Atheists from 2010 to 2050. Has religion, in fact, been the cause of much of the oppression and war throughout history? This is a basic assumption of many who incorporate it into their justification for disbelief; so does it, on its own, disprove religion? I invite you to join me in examining this question: How much has Religion contributed to wars throughout history, and in discussing what can we and what can we not logically conclude from that?
In any case, let’s assume for a couple paragraphs that Sam Harris and others like him are correct and religion is the cause of most oppression and war of mankind’s history. There’s no question in my mind that war is a sad reality of our world, but what conclusion can we come to if most wars have been religious? If this is in fact true, and the tragedies of war and oppression can all be shown to be caused by religion, at least half or even three fourths of the time, what then? Therefore what? What effect does that have on whether a view is consistent or inconsistent with reality? A view is regarded incorrect based on the reasons, or lack thereof, for the view, not by how kind or cruel the behavior is of the person who holds to the view. Perhaps if I was kind, people would be more apt to listen to the reasons for my view, but whether I am Buddhist and kind to those around me or if I am Muslim and cruel to those around me, what does that have to do with whether my beliefs are correct or incorrect? It appears that those who are raising this issue have a problem with the believer, not the actual belief. It does not logically follow to claim a religious view is correct or not based on a believer’s moral or immoral acts.
Maybe one could claim a religion is wrong in virtue that it promotes violence and oppression, but by doing so they are claiming something about oppression is objectively inconsistent with the way things should be, to which I would ask Why? It seems some intuitive sense would be telling them it is wrong, therefore whatever view they hold to must not make oppression acceptable. They have, then, made some claim to an objective moral standard which requires a worldview capable of explaining it, and I discussed in my last blog post how naturalism fails to provide such a thing.
Additionally, I would bargain that many religious conflicts were not actually fueled by theological disagreements, although I’m not at all claiming this was always the case, but instead were implicitly fueled by politics where political and religious lines matched. The Seventh War of Religion of 1580, for instance, also known as the Lovers’ War, had little to do with aggression between Catholics and Protestants. Instead, the hostilities were set off by the promiscuous wife of Henry IV of Navarre. Greg Koukl offered it this way, that
Many conflicts that appear at first glance to be religious in nature are actually political or cultural wars that divide along religious lines. The strife in Northern Ireland is not a theological dispute about Catholicism vs. Protestantism per se, but rather a cultural power struggle between two groups of people. In like manner, much of the conflict in Eastern Europe and the Middle East is the result of ethnic hostilities, not genuine religious differences. The Crusades, the Inquisition, some of the religious wars of the Reformation, and the Salem witch trials, on the other hand, were more theological.
Furthermore, why should we hold Christianity accountable for the actions of so-called followers whom disobey the explicit instructions? Is oppression or bloodshed either a religious duty of Christianity or a logical application of its teachings? If the answer is no, then the violence done in His name cannot be blamed on Christ. The blame would not be with Christ, but with the people who disobey Him. Clearly, He says If you love Me, you will keep My Commandments (John14v15), including his command to show love even to one’s enemy (Luke10v29-37). The Apostle John communicates the same view: By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother (1John3v10). In truth, any acts of cruelty or oppression would not have been due to an individual’s Christian worldview, but a lack thereof. When Martin Luther King Jr. confronted injustice in the white church in the South, for example, he called on those churches not to become more secular, but more Christian. He knew that the answer to oppression and violence was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity. A Christianity that transcended their cultural and political associations. Greg Koukl points out that
Nothing in Christian teaching itself mandates forcible conversion to the faith or coerced adherence to Biblical doctrines. The teachings of Christ do not lead logically to wanton bloodshed. Jesus Himself warned of interlopers, wolves in sheep’s clothing. His assessment of them is unmistakable: “I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matthew7v23) The actual track record for genuine disciples of Jesus Christ, those who follow the written instructions, is much different…Christian morality is informed by the notion that… God reigns over a moral universe He created. He requires virtuous behavior from His subjects and will one day judge each person’s conduct with perfect justice…. [and] human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have transcendent value. This has been the foundation for Christian ethics for 2,000 years.
In regards to the claim that religion has been the biggest source of oppression and war in human history, the facts may surprise you. The three volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which records some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history categorize only 123 as being religious in nature. This is only 6.98% of all wars. The percentage is less than half that, at 3.23%, if you subtract those waged in the name of Islam (66). The relationship between religion and war, which skeptics have depicted, is in stark contrast to the facts. Despite this reality, people like Richard Dawkins, who in his book The God Delusion, claim that without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge. Critics of religion continue to make such claims which allude to religion as the ultimate factor responsible for world oppression and violence, and in doing so seem to insinuate that it in some way has anything to do with the coherence of the religious view. Still, it is clear that religion has not played a significant role in most of the world’s wars, though even if it had, that fact would be irrelevant in trying to prove a religious viewpoint false.
Religion then, exonerated from the charge, is not a major contributor to humanity’s wars in proportion to all wars fought. This, however, begs the question of what the cause actually is. I don’t see any way to get around the obvious fact that secular reasoning and naturalistic philosophies have actually been involved in the most bloodshed. The number of people who perished in religious conflicts pales in comparison to the slaughter and butchery which has taken place under non-religious leaders. Ideas have consequences, and in the 20th century they contributed to the democide of an unprecedented number of people. Russia’s communist USSR gave rise to both Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Illich Lenin whom murdered 42,672,000 and 4,017,000, China’s communist Mao Tse-tung and militarist/fascist Chiang Kai-sheck whom murdered 37,828,000 and 10,214,000, communist Cambodia’s Pol Pot whom murdered 2,397,000, Germany’s fascist Adolf Hitler whom murdered 20,946,000, and Imperial Japan’s militarist/fascist Tojo Hideki whom murdered 3,990,000. From 1917 to 1987, in a span of under 70 years, roughly 121,332,000 human beings were murdered by these government regimes. In R. J. Rummel’s work Lethal Politics and Death by Government, he writes
Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.
The cause, of course, goes deeper than political dogma or philosophical ideology. No single worldview can bear full responsibility, it has occurred under such a wide spectrum of philosophical positions. The common denominator of all this conflict, suffering and oppression, as understood in the Christian worldview, is humankind and the sin problem that plagues it. Very clearly Paul the Apostle and Jesus write that it is due to their hardness of heart, that in the futility of their minds… They are darkened in their understanding (Ephesians4v17,18). That it is because of the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth (Romans1v18), from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness (Mark7v21-23). This, we see, is why their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known (Romans3v15-17). James asks (and answers his own question) what causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel (James4v1,2). It is the great tragedy of the human condition, but a reality we must accept if we are to accurately understand and identify why there has been so much war, oppression and suffering.
Many have, claiming religion has been the primary cause of so much war and oppression, seen this as a devastating argument against Christianity or religion in general. It turns out to be a misinformed view of history, though even if it were true, doesn’t address the reasons for the religious view in question and is therefore irrelevant in determining if it is false. It also tells us nothing about the validity or coherency of the claims a religious view makes if so-called followers are disobeying its instructions. Still, less than 7% of all wars have been over theological differences, less than 4% if you do not include Islamic wars, and religious wars account for only 2% of all people killed by warfare. Religion is not to blame; indeed secular ideologies and philosophies have contributed far more to human bloodshed. Despite this, they are not the problem per se, the problem is deeper, diagnosed by many, though cured only by one.
The Cappadocian Church Father Gregory of Nyssa who lived in the 4th century was an opponent of the human slavery of his day. He grounded human beings’ inherent value, in his fourth homily on the book of Ecclesiastes, like this: