Mort-Hog
If moral relativism is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Posts: 4,192
Violence is an inevitable product of religion because it galvanises a social group through conflict with an out-group. A collective identity is formed and legitimised by opposition to external forces; they are defined by what they are not rather than what they are.
This is indeed true of many different sorts of social groups, but religion is unique in its closeness, cultural rigidity and single-minded clarity in its absolute 'truth'. Any action that is legitimised by a religious belief is above any 'normal' social or moral authority, and so the power of religion (and the brutality of that action) cannot be questioned. An opposition to that brutality only strengthens the religious belief as it enhances the collective persecution. Søren Kierkegaard wrote about this extensively, how religion can transcend 'universal' moral standards; he argues that the sacrifice of Abraham was the "teleological suspension of the ethical." Religion, by its supernatural nature, cannot submit to any 'natural' authority and cannot be moderated by rationality.
Religion requires social conflict to enhance symbolic boundaries to keep it from imploding internally. Catholocism is framed by the internal conflict between the church of piety and the church of power, and this stimulates reform to restore its evangelical outreach and internal theological identity. Religions make extraordinary promises if individuals give up social status, social norms, or even personal survival, and this is a perfect vehicle for socially marginalised groups to gain seemingly supernatural powers if they submit to a religious authority.
It is possible that religions actively seek violence because it is functional in strengthening collective identity, but I don't think this is likely. I think it is more likely that the modern religions that we see today are the ones that have created sufficient conflict, externally and internally, to protect itself and survive; a sort of crude 'survival of the fittest' of competing religions. Historically, religion is a product of violence and conflict, and now violence and conflict are a product of religion.
Whether humans are born 'good' and corrupted by society, or born 'evil' and redeemed by society, is a very deep and profound question that Locke wrote about (while running from smoke monsters), but my argument treats religion as a social construct so doesn't rely on any particular answer to that question.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935