Is Religion a Force for Good or Ill?: The Myth of Religious Violence - William T. Cavanaugh

One of the lectures in the 2014-2015 Lecture Series: Is Religion a Force for Good or for Ill?

[@ferashannawi1136]

Hitchens entire legacy was eradicated in the first 15 min of that video. This man is a genius

[@Mulberry2000]

@Andres Larsson Stupid question and shows your ignorance, get a book, watch a documentary,, watch the news other than fox, and talk/travel with people. The reason they are leaving is the US is bombing the crap out of them, supporting dictatorships, supporting Israel. The talk said this as much but you never watched it or listened to properly

[@AdolfStalin]

@@Mulberry2000 you do realize liberals are controlled opposition right? the only way is the third position, which is isn't compromised by lobbying or wall street.

[@sr.cosmos4543]

@@AdolfStalin based?

[@forbesfoofighters]

@@sr.cosmos4543 very

[@waqarali7]

thanks for such an outstanding lecture

[@andreasj864]

1:24:50 a Sam Harris fan appeared, not having learned anything from the lecture.

[@spyrojones6030]

Thanks for the amazing lecture, and a special thanks to #SaintScholastica for hosting the lecture. My brother works at a secular educational institution, and he shows this lecture to every class at the end of the year, and the response is overwhelmingly positive. Cavanaugh makes great academic and thought-provoking points, and has really challenged conceptions that I admittedly found hard to swallow (such as demolishing the religious/secular definitions). Thank you Dr. Cavanaugh!

[@amine63404]

Great lecture, thank you.

[@rossharmonics]

His answer about if he were to make a commencement address (at 1:10) is very similar to certain quotes from Confucius.

[@teymurasgarli9506]

he owned the man who asked the last question.

[@schenksteven1]

This is essentially Owen Barfield's concept of "ancient unities" applied to religion and politics.

[@timswauger9245]

Excellent lecture. The final answer could have been expanded. Does Sam Harris still believe scientific rationalism is a universal form of rationality? Certainly the last questioner does. He obviously believes postmodern thought is false & scientific rationalism isn't grounded in a particular moral perspective. Yet, we all have known for decades scientific rationalism rests on particular moral frameworks imbued with subjective beliefs about life and existence that are anything but scientific. The danger isn't superstition but that your belief is universally intelligible, frees you from hypocrisy & self-deception, and therefore gives you the right to be judge jury and executioner. That is the ultimate superstition which I'm afraid this final questioner suffers from. Committing to abstain from violence is key to eliminating it over the long run. But in the war of ideas which often turns violent, such a proposition is only rational when a power in whom you trust tells you it is and demonstrates that it is. But his message only moves you to action if you believe he has full authority to judge you and doesn't. In stead, he extends grace and forgives you even when you aren't worthy of it. That is the message of Christ that admittedly requires belief but translates into the refusal to perpetuate violence. As recipient of undeserving grace we would be utter hypocrites if we espoused anything else.

[@PirateFilmsARRRR]

The definition of "religion" aside, when there is violence and control perpetrated against you, it is especially horrific when it is done according to a faith in something that can never be proved as true.

[@SkylerJCollins]

+PirateFilmsARRRR National authority comes to mind as something that "can never be proved as true."

[@DjinnandTonik]

In other cases, is it especially less horrific? They killed you because they feel entitled to your land. Or they kill you because they are revolted by your race. just two examples obvs, but they dont seem particularly better to me. If we are talking about proving things as 'true' - since when do people kill according too objective science?

[@Calphool222]

Not sure how one concludes this. Dead is dead. The ideas floating around in the head of the murderer are irrelevant.

[@sr.cosmos4543]

Now apply that to liberalism, or communism.

[@scottmcloughlin4371]

??? ??? "Proved as true." Such as? Do you mean "real." Things are real. "5 is an odd number and a prime number" is true. What do you mean?

[@helenhart6979]

It's NOT a myth

[@chtodelat]

OK, I have one problem with mr Cavanaughs constructivism. If the religion is a constructed term which is invoked to justify some certain sorts of power configurations, and if this division between secular and religious is originated from the struggle between ecclesiastical and civil authorities; If there is no functioning definition of religion and if the definition of religion has so "fuzzy edges" that practically "anything that gives our lives a sense of meaning" can be considered as religion; and if therefore the concept of religion does not provide any analytical help - ...DOES it then mean that the criticism of religion, not only that of religious violence, but rather the criticism of religion as such loses its meaningfulness? How can we criticize something we can't even define? How can we criticize non-'scientific' approaches and reject them as religiously motivated, if there is no such thing as "religion", there are just 'believes'? Wouldn't the scientific method be nothing more than another cultural practice, like yoga? That leaves us with sad conclusion, because "...the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism".

[@TheSeeking]

You arbitrarily construct a false construct. You then proceed to conclude a false construction based on a falsely constructed premise, then you wander into a fantasy land constructed falsely in your misconstructed, misconstructivist head to come out with the conclusion you wanted to arrive to from the beginning. So, in short, *facepalm

[@Calphool222]

@@mattlewis4832 I like this line of thinking. I also think that it makes some sense to consider what religion is, or rather what it is an element of. Religion is a component of the broader concept of culture. Language, symbols, music, religion, politics, economy, education, values, norms, etc. So, it seems reasonable that we can indeed criticize religion, but our mindset ought to be framed in the same way we would criticize these other elements of culture. Not that we have some iron clad perfectly rational criticism, but rather simply the ability to compare relatively. To decry religion as a net evil makes about as much sense as decrying language as a net evil. In short, it borders on absurd. It exists, it is an element of how humans interact, share beliefs, and exchange culture, and thus it cannot be a net evil, unless ultimately the nominal behavior of humans is a net evil. If you believe _that_ , you are not just an atheist, you are a functional misanthrope. Now, does that mean we cannot criticize a religion? Of course not, but we are already circumscribed in _how_ we may criticize it. We can compare it to other deeply held belief systems that are religions (functional or otherwise), but that is as far as it makes sense to go. Otherwise one is wishing humans to be something other than human, and as the quip goes, "if wishes were fishes..."