Brent I have not read Pinker's book but I am interested in why he thinks people who differ on matters of faith are more likely to turn to violence, or are willing to die, to defend their worldview.
There are some obvious examples of people who claimed their worldview was based on coherent logical arguments and philosophies (no blind faith involved), yet took to violence to defend them. Pol Pot or Mao spring to mind.
Seems to me that the tendency to turn to violence to defend a worldview (or preparing to die for a belief) may be more to do with the human condition than with the logical defendability of that worldview?
Religion and Violence
A few things come to mind. There are two separate issues that you mentioned.
- Turning to violence to defend your idea.
- Being willing to die for your idea.
There is no argument that people and groups find a variety of motives for violence. It does seem, however that a significant majority of violence historically can be blamed upon a religious position or conflict of positions. We are seeing this trend wain as fewer and fewer people in our world are committed to any religion and more and more religious followers are only nominally so. However, the reason Pinker suggested religion was prominent as a catalyst for violence was as follows (in my words):
Disagreeing factions will often often use tools to dissolve the conflict before deciding to simply eliminate their opponent. They will try to persuade, to discuss to understand. In doing this they will appeal to common ground in their opponents minds; 'what can we both agree on?' or they may use a mediator who can weigh up the the data presented and make a decision on their behalf or they may use a court, or they may survey the public.
So in deciding whether or not to remove the railway from the CBD, all these options are open to them, while the decision about whether Jesus or Mohammed is the pre-eminent prophet, deeply religious people, and in fact most religious people, never open a discussion with their opponent at all and reject their opponent's opinion out of hand. They are the apostates - the deceivers or at least the deceived. This is a generalisation but as such it is true as far as I can see.
On being willing to die for your idea, while many people have willingly and knowingly died for non-religious ideas or causes, the religious ones do it with the conviction that their death doesn't matter, is no loss or will even result in great gain. What's more the blood of the martyrs consolidates the group's identity and fervour making a repeat episode even more likely. The blood of fallen soldiers is mourned, while the blood of martyrs is venerated.
It could be argued that utopic idealisms are akin to religions or are in fact religions. This might cast Pol Pot or Mao in a different light. Wikipedia defines religion:
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."
Your thoughts?
What drives people to need to change others' worldviews?
Brent
Why do you think, in general, two religions that have differed significantly in their beliefs even felt the need to "resolve" their differences by means violent or otherwise.
Now this is a very broad question so I am ignoring the many examples where religion was just the convenient excuse utilised by leaders to effect some other agenda (such as attaining of wealth or land or more power).
I know many many people and groups who have a radically different view of reality to me - but I feel no compulsion whatever to try to change their views. Where does this need to change other people's worldviews come from do you reckon?
This is a side issue so don't feel the need to respond quickly - it's more important that we get the meeting agenda sorted.