Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
That second quote doesn't really jibe with the first. You are saying that the "ultimate motivation" for war is either political or economic quite plainly and unambiguously - I don't see how I'm misconstruing your comments at all, it's more like you're contradicting yourself.
There is no such thing as an "ultimate" cause for any war or other complex chain of events. The idea that there is such a thing is an illusion fostered by our limited human capacity for reason. There are proximate causes that are necessary for certain events, but every war ever waged had many causes, among which almost always include political, cultural, ethnic, religious and economic. In certain cases - including the Israeli wars which I think you've mentioned before, and repeatedly incorrectly identify as a mostly secular conflict - religion IS that proximate cause, as differences in religious belief act as a catalyst in turning peace into war.
|
And you keep characterizing my comments in the absolute. I stand by my assertion that in
most cases, the ultimate and underlying causes for the majority of human conflicts are political or economic. Religious tensions execerbate and often provide motivation and rationale for conducting these conflicts. On the balance, some factors will usually outweigh others. I don't see how a limited capacity to reason precludes you from reaching reasonably accurate conclusions about the main causes of human behavior and conflict in recorded history as long as there is sufficient and reliable information. People will kill in the name of religion but their underlying motivations are usually better framed in terms of political or economic motives even if they do not recognize this themselves. They want to exert dominance over other peoples, they want economic gain, they are territorial, they want to accumulate wealth and exercise power, etc.
I never said the Arab Isreali wars were mostly secular. I said that it was about about the survival of the relatively nascent Jewish state in the middle of Arab territory. This was exacerbated by the remnants of the Ottoman Empire jockeying for power and the effects of a Jewish territory being artifically created in territory the Arabs considered their own. The proximate cause is the ages old conflict between Arabs and Jews. Yes, these groups are often largely defined by their respective religions but in the bigger picture, this is a battle of competing cultures with centuries old animosity that is much larger than religion itself. This continues with the territorial wars of today in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, etc. Is Isreal really creating settlements in the name of Yahweh as the main factor in this? (though Zionism does play a part) Or is it their own way of creating living space for the expansion of their state? Isreal's motivations are about survival of their state. If it were mainly about religion, Isreal would not allow the Temple Mount to remain a mosque or have ceded control to a Muslim authority in land which is rightfully within their territory won in 1967.
I don't know why we are arguing, I've said over and over again that religion is used as
a motivation and justification for many wars. That is exactly the same as being the catalyst that is the tipping point into war as you say. We are arguing over semantics. My definition of political is one of social relationships regarding authority and power and group decision making. That includes religious, racial, cultural aspects. It is intended to be a much broader umbrella than simply governance or state actions as you may interpret it.
What I am trying to get at, is that it is human nature to act in this manner, to seek power and to dominate what they see as different. Even if you took away religion in historical times, humanity would not be any less war-like. We would have found other ignorant ideas and superstitions to act around such as differences in race, culture, or how to order society. The greatest global wars civilization has ever seen were secular and largly among people that obstensibly shared the same religious heritage and backgrounds in a time where we were considered englightened by civilization, scientific knowledge, and liberalization. In the end, western civilization was only talked out of their tendancy for all-out war by the fact that for the first time, the risks of war far outweighed the potential gains...ie: total annhilation through mutually assured destruction.