William Cavanaugh on the "Myth of Religious Violence"

Dr. William Cavanaugh, professor of theology at DePaul University, delivered the keynote address for the Ableson Religious Reconciliation Lecture on Jan. 21, 2014 at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma in Chickasha, OK. Cavanaugh answers questions about his research into the "myth" of religious violence with Dr. Zach Simpson, the Ableson Religious Reconciliation chair and assistant professor of interdisciplinary studies at USAO.

[@mattdzelko]

The final question is the most pertinent here, that is, what predicts violence. Cavanaugh alludes to it earlier when mentioning the fluidity of distinction of secular/religious, which suggests that decision-making is not a rational function serving some ideological purpose, but rather sits more primatively in cognitive processing. It is a misstep to localise the debate in the ideological then, since policy isn't necessarily a motive for action, but rather an emergent phenomena from deeper, more individualised psychological processes such as emotional regulation and other functions of the prefrontal cortex. The interplay between such areas and more egocentric limbic areas seems a better place to answer such questions. This interplay helps us better understand the choices between fulfilling our own needs, whether they be defensive, aggressive or otherwise, and the impact they might have on others, particularly through violence, the choice which then gives rise to emergent, tertiary ideologies that we then subscribe to.

[@usaodrovers]

Dr. William Cavanaugh, professor of theology at DePaul University, delivered the keynote address for the Ableson Religious Reconciliation Lecture on Jan. 21, 2014 at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma in Chickasha, OK. Cavanaugh answers questions about his research into the "myth" of religious violence with Dr. Zach Simpson, the Ableson Religious Reconciliation chair and assistant professor of interdisciplinary studies at USAO.

[@williamcav1454]

I came across this man as I go by his name on the internet as a nom de plume... One criticism I have is he seems to approach religion as something unchanging like race, unable to be altered during one's lifetime. I suppose I'm assuming I know his position on what "faith" is... which I don't... But to say that the private vs. public distinction makes religion an individualistic thing goes against his initial point on togetherness as an element of religion? Also, capitalism isn't a religion, it's too broad a term to point to "capitalists" as a group vs. all individuals brought into the capitalist economy, there doesn't seem to be much choice in being involved in capitalism... Consumerism/Objectivism or people who actively promote those policies in the economy you could certainly make the case. It also seems as if he's trying to get away from "religious violence" as a subcategory of violent behavior by broadening what it means to be a "religion." Instead, I look at it as a problem where religious violence has become an intolerable type of violence for many western societies vs. reasons we're able to justify... and I think the "faith" element of perpetuating violence really creates that distinction. Anywho, he made some very good points and changed my mind on a few things. I'll keep up on his stuff.

[@joangnarlwode4176]

Capitalism is quite visibly a religion for many, with a bunch of absolitist faith beliefs easily questioned. Ditto with Communism. And, capitalists have an astounding capacity for violence--they, along with Communists, have caused most wars and most genocides. I think the Capitalist class (which is NOT the same thing as entrepreneurs or small family enterprise) likes to blame "Religion" for what they do.