Religion, Rationality, and Violence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Religion, Rationality, and Violence - try on ExampleAccording to research findings, religious violence or terrorism is a modern socio-political syndrome arising from the far-fetched religious thinking. This has vividly projected cosmic images of war. Religions have sought the restoration of order by the affirmation of breeding through the violence of cosmic war. Many schools of thought have held the maxim that for religion to do more adept than harm in our society, then religion has to dress up the armor of temper of cause and fair play that Enlightenment values gives to society. Religion qua religion is inherently violent the Enlightenment m obsoleteiness redeem it. Harrison, Everett F., ed. (1960)Christianity for example, has been known to have harbored the worst violent legacy the stretches back into the black age. Questions being pondered argon whether Christianity should get the Enlightenment redress. The exposition of a religious Hitler can be depicted in most(prenominal) fanatical scenarios perpetrated around the globe the most lunatical beli perpetuallys. Mother Teresa, with all her shortcomings, is a typical bod of what modern Christianity is contrary portraying. Harris, Harriet A. (2004).ReligionIslam has been demonised as a rhetorical device, to try to persuade fundamentalist Christians. Harris brings aside comparisons with the terrorists that Christians are so afraid of. In so doing, Harris paints all of Islam with a rather broad crash and makes some serious errors of cause and effect. For example, he contends that Middle East terrorism is indeed because of religion and repeats the old propaganda about virgins in paradise, while completely ignoring class issues, imperialism, occupation and invasion, poverty, desperation, and political manipulation by Arab states for totally secular reasons. Barthel, Manfred and Mark Howson, trans. (1982).The only evidence he offers in favor of his thesis is that the World passel Center hijackers were midd le-class and hadnt experienced political repression, a contention that he doesnt bother to defend and that withal doesnt support generalization from al-Qaeda to all of Islam or even all of Islamic terrorism. Hes way likewise eager to use a current political bogeyman to support a different production line and in so doing falls into the sloppy and simplistic reasoning that hes criticized through the rest of the book. Harrison, Jane. (1996)Harris does a good job pointing out the reasons why atheists find fundamentalist Christianity so absurd. The sections on biblical inerrancy and on the rule book as a moral force are particularly good, although if one hasnt already realized that the Biblical text cannot support its supposed moral lessons without a great deal of strain and selective reading, I dont think Harris will convince. And that raises the strategic problem Harris is preaching to the choir, will make those who already believe what he believes feel better about their beliefs, and is unlikely to make much impact with his supposed target audience. First, the prefatory parameter over religion faces a communication gap before it ever reaches the level of argument and analysis. People dont tend to seek out polemics against their closely held beliefs unless theyre just looking for reasons to get angry or ways to undermine an argument. Harris says that hes writing this book to provide ammunition, but while that ammunition can change by reversal away or argue down evangelicals who are trying to convert an atheist, I doubt it ever does much to convince them their belief is wrong. Second, I think Harris misses, or at least fails to address, the basic reasons why people believe. His target is religious faith, but hes attacking it in the way that one would attack a scientific theory. Religious faith is not, in