Does religion cause all the trouble in the world?

People often point the finger at religion as the source of violence and fanaticism. Does this make sense?

You sometimes find it said that it’s religion that causes all, or most, or at least half the trouble in the world. Let’s look at this.

It’s true that the United States have been and probably will be again under attack from political fanatics who also have different religious beliefs from most US citizens, and who tie the two things together. It’s also true, and very important, that a very large majority of the people who share those religious beliefs, even if they also think that there at things that are wrong in the attitudes and lifestyles typical of the US, would utterly reject the kind of attack seen here. This should be the background of our discussion --  violent fanatics, whether they give themselves a religious justification or not, are always minorities. If they weren’t, the human race would have destroyed itself long ago.

But it’s not true that violence comes specially from religion. The attacks of the ancient Germanic tribes on the Roman empire, the attacks of the Huns on the West and on China, had no religious overtones. There was no special religious animus in the war that nearly destroyed the United States 160 years ago, and left a million dead. And religious people aren’t always violent in pursuit of their beliefs, either. For hundreds of years Christians, Jews and Muslims got on quite peaceably together in Spain, except when kings were fighting over their borders. Violence, in history, looks more closely tied to the existence of governments than to the existence of religion -- but we’re all sure, I suppose, that the existence of governments is necessary to protect us from widespread private violence.

People may say: “But don’t most religions teach ethical codes, which should at least hold believers back from extreme and fanatical violence?” And my answer is: yes, they do, and they succeed for most believers. When you believe anything strongly, there is always a temptation to act violently and unfairly against the people you regard as offending against those beliefs. Most people in this country believe very strongly that the sexual abuse of children is a very bad thing, and that those who commit such acts should be severely punished. The temptation is there for any of us who feel strongly --  rightly --  on this question, to carry out acts of private revenge, or to act just on suspicion. But this would be very wrong.

Whenever you feel very strongly about something, whenever you think that there is some good to be promoted or evil to be overcome, you will be tempted to do terrible things to get what you believe in. Religious believers feel this temptation too. But religious believers usually believe that the future is in God’s hands, and we can know nothing about it: meanwhile, we do know that God has told us “Thou shalt not commit murder”. So religious believers are less likely to do terrible things to get what they believe in than are other people — they know that they can’t get what they believe in unless God gives it to them, unless God’s will goes along with them. And how are they to expect that God’s will will go along with them if they themselves go against God’s will by breaking his commands?

Christopher Martin teaches philosophy at the University of St Thomas in Houston, Texas.