One of the most common complaints against God is this; 'Why do bad things happen in the world?'  And following on from that - 'Look at all the wars and conflicts religion has caused'. 

 

It is not so surprising that these objections are prevalent among unbelievers, because the real answer to the question lies in the belief that the words of God are the only true way forward.  When one believes that His words are the only true way forward, it is quite easy to see the real correlation between religion and human conflict.  All the correlatives between religion and human conflict come under one big heading - The Sin Of Man.   Only those who have accepted the words of the one and only God can understand fully the dangers of disobeying His commandments or the dangers of worshipping false gods. 

 

Let us first take the objection that 'Religion causes wars and conflicts' - and straightaway we can see that it is a non-sequiter.  Even those who stridently assert that religion does cause wars and conflicts do not usually realise that the method of logic they are applying to that statement is not the same method that they apply to most other forms of thought. 

 

In fact, the statement 'religion causes wars and conflicts' can easily be refuted with one simple observation.  Christ enunciated very clearly that those who commit treacherous acts are not pleasing God by their actions.  He taught that all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:52.  He also taught that anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 1 John 2:9.  And it naturally follows that those who choose to disobey these instructions are, very often, not true men of God.  They have rejected the only religion that will provide them with the remedy for human suffering, so they are, therefore, in no position to blame religion, just as a man who throws his dinner in the bin is in no position to claim that he is still hungry.

 

It is quite silly to blame religion for wars and conflicts, for deep down, even the most ardent sceptic knows that he or she is really to blame for his or her wrongdoing.  After all, who could bear to have their soul displayed for all to see - every ingredient of one's thoughts and wishes written on a board and made public like the latest brand of washing powder?  No, it naturally feels more convenient for humans to keep it all tucked away in the dark tunnel of the psyche.  And the easiest way to do this is to blame something else, just as a man might blame others for his quick temper. 

 

I said a moment ago that those who castigate religion for crimes committed use different logic for other things.  I will now explain what I mean.  If a man read the back of a bottle of pills and was instructed to take no more than four pills per day, he could hardly blame anyone but himself if he chose to take 12 pills and became quite ill.  In fact, if he tried to blame the pills, the chemist, or the manufacturer, he would come across as rather foolish.  Those who blame religion for sinful men's actions are arguing along the same foolish lines.  These human faults know no boundaries of time, race or religion.  The potential badness exists within almost all men and women and it easily explains how we are able to tolerate others. 

 

But all this is not much use unless we look more closely at the reason why men and women think this way.  There are two reasons why.  The first reason is the most obvious; to think such thoughts provides an easy expedient method of rejecting Christianity without feeling much guilt or compunction.  Thus men will say, 'I don't want any of that nasty barbarism, give me good old fashion morality any day'.  The second reason is a little more complex - it involves confusion of thought regarding cause and effect.  Cause and effect is the relationship between two things.  One thing makes something else happen.  For example if we consume too much food and do not exercise, we put on weight.  Eating food without exercising is the cause; putting on weight is the effect.

 

When analysing cause and effect formulas, one should not forget that there might be multiple causes and multiple effects.  When we are looking for correlations between wars and religion, we are really asking, 'why did the wars happen?'

 

If an effect is what happens as a result of the cause, one would need to find a cause more primary than religion if one were to refute the objector's claim.  The first principle of the argument is to find out whether religion is all of the cause, or some of the cause or none of the cause.  The only way to determine this is by what is called componential analysis - the breaking down of each statement of contention.  To do this properly, religious sceptics should really enquire about the cause of each individual war or conflict, not about wars or conflicts in general. 

 

And now we come to the bit where those who are claming that religion causes wars are confused.  They are wrongly assuming that causality can be explained through interchangeable substitutions; that is, they think the hypothetical change of a particular event or circumstance can help substantiate their claims of real causation.  They will claim that a particular conflict, like, say, the past troubles in Northern Ireland, would not have existed without religion.  They use the same method for their argument against religion in the same way that one might say, 'Without pigs there would be no bacon'. 

 

Now it might be true that if there was no such thing as religion, the conflict in Northern Ireland would not have existed in the same way that it did.  But it does not mean that 1) there would be no conflict at all; 2) that all religion is false or made up; or 3) that it justifies any decision to reject God based on conflicts observed around the world.  We can see quite clearly the initial formula of primacy has broken down, for if religion was the cause of wars and conflicts in the same way that the moon causes the tides, then religion would have caused all wars and conflicts.  And I think we can clearly see that no sane man or woman thinks that religion has caused all wars and conflicts.