Would atheism cure the Middle East?

[Q]

If somehow it became an excepted fact that God either didn't exist or had never interacted with humans, would this solve the fighting in the Middle East? Are all, or practically all of the car bombings and suicide attacks a result of religous motivation?If so wouldn't the belief that organized religion is false end this fighting? Obviously they would still hate us for being in Iraq, but I am referencing more towards the struggles between Muslims and Jews.

[QED]

It is obvious that Religion with it's arbitrary beliefs, icons and rituals supplies mankind with a set of clear-cut divisions.

Having such divisions fuels a tendency towards what seems to be a deeper drive for inter-tribal conflict. It is impossible to say if this tendency originated in religious-style differences from the very beginning or for other reasons such as claims to territory/resources etc. The two might always have gone hand in hand.

Either way, the process is one of de-humanization wherein people fail to identify their enemy as being 'people' like the members of their own tribe and this allows them to suspend the compassion and respect for life that pre-exists in most psychologically sound people.

I think it is clear that even in an idealized world where all was in balance except for religious beliefs, these would continue to serve as sufficient dividing lines to perpetuate such conflicts. So yes, the sudden realization that all the bickering and squabbling over this or that Holy shrine was unfounded and that we are all the same (like fish-fingers) would undoubtedly save lives. The downside is that we would lose some of our personal identity, but we could easily make up for it in harmless other ways.

Think about it another way: Ultimately, when two people fail to resolve an argument they often resort to physical violence. This comes out of the frustration felt when either party understands the other to be irrational in their argument. Without the prospect of rational a solution, short of simply walking away, violence becomes the only other recourse. So in the case of a disagreement between different Religious faiths the only recourse is violence as, by definition, neither party can prove their case. This is a catastrophic situation and is in my view a sound reason to regard Religious faith as a negative.

[ST88]

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, religion is merely the excuse, the way to whip up believers into furthering political goals. The fact is, Israel was created out of a place in the Middle East which had been formally or informally claimed by another group, the Palestinians. You can thank the French and the English for carving up the Ottoman Empire so inelegantly that many other conflicts continue to this day. The current "trouble" there is 99% about land. Remove religion from the equation and things might possibly not change. The families of suicide bombers would still get cash if not the promise of eternal bliss, and the cause of a "homeland" is still a worthy goal for most people.

The only part of this that seems like it might be solvable without religion is the cohabitation of Jerusalem. Is that the worst part of the conflict? At this point, I don't know. But there's plenty of conflict to go around.

[Dilettante]

I agree with ST88: the conflict over Israel is mainly a political one. Israel is not a theocracy. And even if a future Palestinian state would probably be ruled by Islamists, not all Palestinians are religious. Arafat wasn't particularly devout, and I hear that when he married he didn't choose a Muslim woman. Religious differences may at times add fuel to the fire, but they are not the main cause of the conflict.

[QED]

Of course there are always alternatives available such as political solutions, but my point is that when it comes to bloodshed it is necessary for people to be able to dehumanize others before they can kill them. Thus religion offers a readymade division.

[Dilettante]

Yes, but so does nationalism and other ideologies.

[QED]

Yes, but so does nationalism and other ideologies.

One step at a time! There is a good prospect of us all living under one Big Mac arch and all having cafe' au lait complexions because such things have a definite logic. But the irrationality of faith is not susceptible to such a remedy.

[ST88]

Of course there are always alternatives available such as political solutions, but my point is that when it comes to bloodshed it is necessary for people to be able to dehumanize others before they can kill them. Thus religion offers a readymade division.

War is a flexible-fuel vehicle. Religion is merely one type of fuel that can be used.

[MagusYanam]

War is a flexible-fuel vehicle. Religion is merely one type of fuel that can be used.

Perhaps. But if we're looking at war that way, I'd say religion and other such divisions are really more like axle grease - needed to keep it running smoothly and quickly. The fuel is most commonly wealth or power, or some combination or manifestation of the two (like land rights).

Religion may be what fuels many of the bodies on the ground doing the killing, but it's very rarely the motivation behind the war per se.

[Dilettante]

Yes, but so does nationalism and other ideologies.

One step at a time! There is a good prospect of us all living under one Big Mac arch and all having cafe' au lait complexions because such things have a definite logic. But the irrationality of faith is not susceptible to such a remedy.

In my view, it's not the complexion or even the ethnicity that is necessarily divisive, but the culture. There are wars because there are very different human cultures with conflicting worldviews. Religion may be a part of those cultures, but it's not all. Wealth or power, as Magus Yanam wrote, may also play a key role sometimes, but not all the time (no matter what Marx thought). But ideologically motivated wars do exist.
As for the Big Mac, I don't think that having a McDonalds burger joint in every city on earth would necessarily homogenize world cultures. For one thing, McDonalds restaurants mean different things in different cultures. In the US, people of all ages and all types can be seen in those fast food joints. Here, however, it's mainly kids and preppy teens who go there.