Religion and Violence: The Prime Analogate of the Human (original) (raw)

With the brutality of the self-designated Islamic State, the question continues to haunt: Is religion inherently violent? Yes, say the so-called New Atheists: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. No, argue Michael Cavanaugh and Karen Armstrong; "the myth of religious violence" is used to cover the violence of secular ideologies. Against the background of the liberal narrative of modern secular modernity and its discontents, the prime analogate of the human, especially as explained by evolutionary biology, is utilized to address the myth and the reality of religion and violence. Wahhabism encapsulates the extremist realities of the question. ABOUT THE AUTHOR M. D. Litonjua is emeritus professor of sociology of the Mount St. Joseph University in Cincinnati, Ohio. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from Brown University, an M.B.A. from the University of Missouri at St. Louis, and Licentiates in Philosophy and Theology from the University of Santo Tomas (Manila). A selection of his articles, review essays, and book reviews can be accessed at http://msj.academia.edu/MDLitonjua. . 9/11 ignited the current debate on whether or not religion is inherently prone to divisiveness and violence. The butchery of the self-designated Islamic State has only inflamed passions on both sides of the question. One the one side are the so-called New Atheists -Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett who embrace their reputation as the "Four Horsemen" -vociferously proclaim that religion is inherently destructive and violent; it clings like a bad seed, it is a relic from the past, and it's time is over. On the other hand, Michael Cavanaugh and Karen Armstrong, one a theologian and the other a historian of religion,