Why is there less violence today than in the past?

[Danmark]

In a response at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 659#647659
McCulloch cited a very interesting book:
The Better Angels of our Nature

Pinker presents some astonishing numbers. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate of Medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia.....What led people to stop sacrificing children, stabbing each other at the dinner table, or burning cats and disemboweling criminals as forms of popular entertainment? ....Pinker argues the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/be ... our-nature
The questions for debate are: Has there been a dramatic decrease in violence and if so, to what do you attribute it?

[Ooberman]

This is something i have touched on before. Christians often claim its because of Christianity, yet most of these gains came after the Elightenment.
Plus, it doesnt explain Christians claim that we are fallen and getting worse because we are increasingly secular.
So, the ad hoc nature of apologetics rears its dual nature. On one hand, chritains want to take credit for gains but at the same time claim things are getting worse.

To me, its clear Science, Secularism and the Humanist principles of the Enlightenment are the reasons. Christianity has adapted.

[Danmark]

This is something i have touched on before. Christians often claim its because of Christianity, yet most of these gains came after the Elightenment.
Plus, it doesnt explain Christians claim that we are fallen and getting worse because we are increasingly secular.
So, the ad hoc nature of apologetics rears its dual nature. On one hand, chritains want to take credit for gains but at the same time claim things are getting worse.

To me, its clear Science, Secularism and the Humanist principles of the Enlightenment are the reasons. Christianity has adapted.

I agree. Christianity had 2000 years and failed. The scope and depth of communication along with the rise of secular democracy has done in a few decades what religion could not do in millennia.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

If I may, I'll borrow from Pinker. He devotes a chapter to each of the metaphoric demons, which increase violence.

1. Predatory or Practical Violence – that is, violence “deployed as a practical means to an end.�
2. Dominance - The “urge for authority, prestige, glory, and power�; Pinker argues that dominance motivations can be found within individuals and coalitions of “racial, ethnic, religious, or national groups.�
3. Revenge - The “moralistic urge toward retribution, punishment, and justice.�
4. Sadism - The "deliberate infliction of pain for no purpose but to enjoy a persons suffering..."
5. Ideology - A “shared belief system, usually involving a vision of utopia, that justifies unlimited violence in pursuit of unlimited good …�

He argues that spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism have all been factors in reducing violence. With the advent of effective government, the practical advantages of violence are significantly reduced. And the chances of success for dominance by violent means is also reduced. When the judicial system is seen to be effective and fair, the motivation for revenge is reduced. Literacy in a general way, increases empathy. Trade also reduces the motivation for violence. We are all less likely to beat up on someone we plan to trade with soon.

He then goes on with a chapter for each of our metaphoric better angels:

1. Empathy - Which “prompts us to feel the pain of others and to align their interests with our own�;
2. Self-Control - Which “allows us to anticipate the consequences of acting on our impulses and to inhibit them accordingly�;
3. The Moral Sense - Which “sanctifies a set of norms and taboos that govern the interactions among people in a culture"; these sometimes decrease violence but can also increase it “when the norms are tribal, authoritarian, or puritanical�;
4. Reason - Which “allows us to extract ourselves from our parochial vantage points.�

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

If I may, I'll borrow from Pinker. He devotes a chapter to each of the metaphoric demons, which increase violence.

1. Predatory or Practical Violence – that is, violence “deployed as a practical means to an end.�
2. Dominance - The “urge for authority, prestige, glory, and power�; Pinker argues that dominance motivations can be found within individuals and coalitions of “racial, ethnic, religious, or national groups.�
3. Revenge - The “moralistic urge toward retribution, punishment, and justice.�
4. Sadism - The "deliberate infliction of pain for no purpose but to enjoy a persons suffering..."
5. Ideology - A “shared belief system, usually involving a vision of utopia, that justifies unlimited violence in pursuit of unlimited good …�

He argues that spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism have all been factors in reducing violence. With the advent of effective government, the practical advantages of violence are significantly reduced. And the chances of success for dominance by violent means is also reduced. When the judicial system is seen to be effective and fair, the motivation for revenge is reduced. Literacy in a general way, increases empathy. Trade also reduces the motivation for violence. We are all less likely to beat up on someone we plan to trade with soon.

He then goes on with a chapter for each of our metaphoric better angels:

1. Empathy - Which “prompts us to feel the pain of others and to align their interests with our own�;
2. Self-Control - Which “allows us to anticipate the consequences of acting on our impulses and to inhibit them accordingly�;
3. The Moral Sense - Which “sanctifies a set of norms and taboos that govern the interactions among people in a culture"; these sometimes decrease violence but can also increase it “when the norms are tribal, authoritarian, or puritanical�;
4. Reason - Which “allows us to extract ourselves from our parochial vantage points.�

Thanks, great summary. I want to add a comment on an aspect of #5,

"Ideology - A “shared belief system, usually involving a vision of utopia, that justifies unlimited violence in pursuit of unlimited good …�

This one is fascinating since it involves an unintended consequence.
I'm not certain how accurate some the the portrayals have been, but there is in my mind the image of the torturing inquisitor killing the offender after his forced repentance so he can 'go to heaven.'

It is not uncommon for a murderer of a child to consider that his murder is actually merciful since it 'sends the child to heaven.'

I've even had more than one case involving this motive. In one the father murdered his wife to get his precious children into foster care and out of the evil clutches of their mother and her 'evil' friends. A book was written about the case. A review: http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/sa ... hee-valley

In another case the father, after killing his wife for typical reasons, killed his children who he genuinely seem to love, so they'd go to heaven, instead of into the 'horrible' foster care system he'd endured.

[Peter]

This is something i have touched on before. Christians often claim its because of Christianity, yet most of these gains came after the Elightenment.
Plus, it doesnt explain Christians claim that we are fallen and getting worse because we are increasingly secular.
So, the ad hoc nature of apologetics rears its dual nature. On one hand, chritains want to take credit for gains but at the same time claim things are getting worse.

To me, its clear Science, Secularism and the Humanist principles of the Enlightenment are the reasons. Christianity has adapted.

I agree. Christianity had 2000 years and failed. The scope and depth of communication along with the rise of secular democracy has done in a few decades what religion could not do in millennia.

I also agree. We're finally growing up as a species and casting off the ignorance and barbarity the practice of christianity promoted in us. Christianity is a feeble shell of it's former monsterous self. Would that we could irradicate all religion and with it most of the reasons for hate and violence in this world. I should live so long...

[Overcomer]

Danmark wrote:

Christianity had 2000 years and failed.

I see no evidence that the world is a less violent place. In fact, the 20th-century was the bloodiest one on record. And that's because of atheistic regimes -- Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, etc.

If you think that Christianity should have "fixed" the world, did you ever think that maybe it hasn't because people like you fail to subscribe to it and live by the "love your enemies" statement that Jesus commanded? Did you ever think you might be part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

[Danmark]

Danmark wrote:

Christianity had 2000 years and failed.

I see no evidence that the world is a less violent place. In fact, the 20th-century was the bloodiest one on record. And that's because of atheistic regimes -- Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, etc.

If you think that Christianity should have "fixed" the world, did you ever think that maybe it hasn't because people like you fail to subscribe to it and live by the "love your enemies" statement that Jesus commanded? Did you ever think you might be part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

No. And I take your suggestion as a personal attack and a failure to look at the evidence presented by Pinker. Did you review that evidence? Do you have any numbers to present that would counter his data? Or are you just sounding off with your personal opinion?

Give me one fact you know about me, or someone you can prove is "like me" that would justify your claim. If you had cared to, you would have reviewed some of my posts and found that even tho' I do not believe in the supernatural, I believe that following much of the advice of Jesus would solve many local and world problems.

I appreciate and try to take heed of Proverbs 16:7,
'When a man’s ways please the Lord,
he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.'

Christianity has failed because it's self proclaimed adherents do not follow Christ's words. They do not love their enemies. They do not take all they have and sell it and give the money to the poor and follow his teachings. Too many who call themselves Christians do exactly what Jesus complained the Pharisees were doing.

Before you look in another's eye to remove a speck, look in your own eye and remove the beam so that you can see clearly.

[McCulloch]

Danmark wrote:

Christianity had 2000 years and failed.

I see no evidence that the world is a less violent place. In fact, the 20th-century was the bloodiest one on record. And that's because of atheistic regimes -- Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, etc.

Wasn’t the 20th century the most violent in history?
Probably not; see chapter 5, especially pp. 189–200. Historical data from past centuries are far less complete, but the existing estimates of death tolls, when calculated as a proportion of the world’s population at the time, show at least nine atrocities before the 20th century (that we know of) which may have been worse than World War II. They arose from collapsing empires, horse tribe invasions, the slave trade, and the annihilation of native peoples, with wars of religion close behind. World War I doesn’t even make the top ten.

Also, a century comprises a hundred years, not just fifty, and the second half of the 20th century was host to a Long Peace (chapter 5) and a New Peace (chapter 6) with unusually low rates of death in warfare.

Atheist regimes in the 20th century killed tens of millions of people. Doesn’t this show that we were better off in the past, when our political and moral systems were guided by a belief in God?
This is a popular argument among theoconservatives and critics of the new atheism, but for many reasons it is historically inaccurate.

First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist� ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not. In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems. They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.

Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia. See p. 677 for discussion and references.

Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White's Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!�, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe (p. 142).

When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between thesistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. On pp. 337–338 I present data from Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternatives forms of government.

[Ooberman]

Danmark wrote:

Christianity had 2000 years and failed.

I see no evidence that the world is a less violent place. In fact, the 20th-century was the bloodiest one on record. And that's because of atheistic regimes -- Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, etc.

Wasn’t the 20th century the most violent in history?
Probably not; see chapter 5, especially pp. 189–200. Historical data from past centuries are far less complete, but the existing estimates of death tolls, when calculated as a proportion of the world’s population at the time, show at least nine atrocities before the 20th century (that we know of) which may have been worse than World War II. They arose from collapsing empires, horse tribe invasions, the slave trade, and the annihilation of native peoples, with wars of religion close behind. World War I doesn’t even make the top ten.

Also, a century comprises a hundred years, not just fifty, and the second half of the 20th century was host to a Long Peace (chapter 5) and a New Peace (chapter 6) with unusually low rates of death in warfare.

Atheist regimes in the 20th century killed tens of millions of people. Doesn’t this show that we were better off in the past, when our political and moral systems were guided by a belief in God?
This is a popular argument among theoconservatives and critics of the new atheism, but for many reasons it is historically inaccurate.

First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist� ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not. In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems. They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.

Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia. See p. 677 for discussion and references.

Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White's Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!�, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe (p. 142).

When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between thesistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. On pp. 337–338 I present data from Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternatives forms of government.

As soon as I read Overcomer's post I thought "Oh, no you didn't!"

I was waiting for this response.


I also find it rather diingenuous for Christians to say "Atheism is worse than Theism" - then take credit for all the versions of Theism. For example, there was never and can never been a massacre done on the behalf of Jainism.

This religion, or the Quakers, or other fringe groups are wonderfully peaceful - just like many Humanist groups.

Clearly, we have to look at what reasons people connected killing with their ideology.

Stalin, Mao, etc; didn't say "Because there is no God, we must Kill! I don't like it, but that's the way it is..,. darn it! If only there was a God! Oh, woe is me!"

However, the Theists who killed have ALWAYS said "For everything there is a season.. God would have us kill the infidel, the witches and that gays! God wants us to do this, as much as we don't want to - but we can find no other way...."

Even as recently as the Gulf War II, Bush invoked God to support his actions (he claimed to have prayed and got the go-ahead from God). The military regularly uses God to support what they do (and it's not ballet - it's killing).