Even if you removed Islam, Judaism, and Christianity you'd still have fanaticism

[OtherSheep]

Reading an article and in the comments one read: "If they got rid of the brainwashing that is called Islam...."

The problem seems to be the lack of solid definitions. People seem to be changing what words mean to exclude or include what doesn't belong, according to older dictionaries. For instance, it appears to me that only the followers of the grace-without-law-gospel were called the christians of Antioch. These days, anyone who follows the Kingdom Gospel is given the same handle, will-he-nil-he. It's the confusion and blurring of legitimate literal lines that causes debates to get ugly.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You sure about that? From where I'm sitting white supremacist terrorist have done far more than what extremist Muslims have done in my existence.

I said the vast majority of religiously motivated terror attacks are made by Islamic groups. As far as white supremacist terrorism goes, I have not looked up specific statistics, so can't speak on that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree or get into a very long debate.

My position is that the founders of religion were not divinely-inspired as they claimed. They meant well, but what they produced in moral guidance came from their consciences--the very same intuitive faculty that we all have. Some men wrote sacred texts, others wrote criminal laws, and both efforts are useless at best and biases when they conflict with the verdicts of conscience.

Conscience is a remarkable faculty. Moral acts happen in a seemingly infinite variety. Yet, if an act we consider is wrong, we will feel the wrongness immediately.

Your position will have to start with men being inspired by God. Mine begins with the thought that our remarkable conscience is the best evidence that a Loving Creator might exist and wants us to have free will along with moral guidance.

I think agreeing to disagree is a really important skill on this forum that many either forget about or lack. Its much better to take this approach than engage in some of the futile and acrimonious arguments that happen here. Rather than debate, I prefer to discuss and explore ideas looking for points of agreement, trying to reconcile differences if possible, and if not agreeing to disagree.

Of course I believe that if God exists, He inspires us all whether we are aware of it or not. In regards the Founders of the world religions it would be a question of degrees. So in that regard I wouldn't consider whether their teachings measure up to what we believe to be true in the twenty first century, but did they enable the progress of moral and intellectual development for the peoples in the age They taught. Regardless, of whether They are from God I agree we all do have capacity to tell right from wrong, truth from falsehood, once again in degrees. This is part of the faculty of the human mind and spirit. Did the religious founders encourage the use of that faculty is another key question?

There's no need to answer any of my questions and I appreciate your common sense and sincerity in approaching discussions such as these on RF.

 

[LuisDantas]

About the OP: It should be easy to notice that not too many ideologies actually claim divine support for their extremism.

That is a danger that the Abrahamics, more so than most any other ideology, must always watch for and guard against. Beyond that, they have a duty to themselves to heal that tendency within their midst.

Extremism, even violent extremism, does indeed arise elsewhere. But it is very remarkable that whole doctrines claim to have God on their side to support that violence.

 

[Milton Platt]

Reading an article and in the comments one read: "If they got rid of the brainwashing that is called Islam...."

Brainwashing....?

It got me thinking of all the terrorist that exist that are not Muslim I began to think that aside from the subject of so-called "Islamic terrorism," even if there were no member of the Abrahamic religion, human beings would find someone way to disagree violently. I say this because often times terrorism is allocated to Islam and there have been comments stating that getting rid of a belief system means to get rid of the terroristic mindset along with it. But the thing is, getting rid of an ideology does not necessarily mean getting rid of fanaticism. Recently there are news reports that there are people in Haiti rioting due to high gas prices. Human beings regardless of belief system will always terrorize each other over something.

True, but at least you would not also have Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Arguably they have caused more unity than anything else. How would you make a case that people would have been more united throughout history without religions? What would have been the unifying ideologies in societies?

The power structures in place virtually all around the world, seemingly as natural as anything else, might have coped without religions to back them up - which of course mostly they did. Religions just added a further hammer to bludgeon the lower orders.

The natural state of human society is division, the idea we have a common humanity has mostly developed via monotheistic religion.

Not really - communities form, and as long as they don't disagree that much with their neighbours, then division is not so much on the cards. What tends to cause division is power structures and the need to cater for these - greed, expansionism, etc..

Even if you argue that religion is no longer necessary, what historically would have replaced it and how would this have been more unifying?

Not something one can readily say about history is it - what ifs - but the power structures alone might have coped - monarchs, tyrants, elected leaders, etc.. Plenty, like myself and others, can live quite peaceably without religions so why not all? We don't need a set of morals imposed on us since it just seems to come quite naturally to treat others as being much the same as ourselves - which religion unfortunately tends to disrupt - since many do see themselves as different from others, and a product of their religion usually.

 

[Mock Turtle]

An amoral science always manifests immorally regardless. Unless we are talking about concrete. Are we talking about the psi of concrete? There is zero aspect of the term morality involved in terms of concrete.

One might say the same about any particular idea or proposal. Two sides to every coin and all.

But nature is spectrum and thus science is studying spectrum. The closer science gets to us the infinitely more scattered the reasoning becomes. this is a curious fact that plagues science. An atheist a believer an agnostic will not argue as to the morality of psi of concrete and all agree and easily communicate at that level. The communication breaks down though as soon as we start to move toward interpersonal. It's that aspect that determines how we interpret nature.

Religions doesn't have to be involved though. They just tend to complicate our existence rather than benefit us. Abandoning religions would remove most of the divisions between us, and any who think that society would then break down I think have a poor view of human nature, when, if one travelled widely, as I have done, then one sees others as mostly much like oneself. The pressures of living in compact communities and the ease of communicating with others is probably the greatest influence on crime, but we seem to manage mostly. Perhaps just easing back on the religious beliefs a bit (eventually abandoning them) would help even more.

 

[Spiderman]

To reaffirm my initial statements, these things you are complaining about I don't see in the Quran and I believe it to be anti-those things.

I know you are getting sick of me, but you might want to have a look:

2:193-“Fight against them until there is no dissension, and the religion is for Allah.”


3:28-“The believers should not take the unbelievers as friends

3:151-“We will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.”

4:89-“”Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

5:51-“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends

8:12, 14-“I shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike them above the necks, smite their finger tips…. the punishment of the fire is for the unbelievers.”

9:1, 3, 5 and that Allah will humiliate the unbelievers…. And give glad tidings to the unbelievers of a painful punishment…. When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Take them and confine them, then lie in ambush everywhere for them.”

47:4-“Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds

98:6-“The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be for ever in the fire of gehenna (hell). They are the worst of all creatures.”

Koran 9:5 "Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.

Koran 9:30 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam" Koran 5:33 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water melt their skin and bellies." Koran 22:19 Koran 3:28 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur'an."

5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption (mischief) is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment."

If that is the God we have. And he treats people like that here or in the afterlife... The worse thing that ever happened to me was my mother giving birth and not an abortion!

 

[Augustus]

The power structures in place virtually all around the world, seemingly as natural as anything else, might have coped without religions to back them up - which of course mostly they did. Religions just added a further hammer to bludgeon the lower orders.

The power structures don't simply exist they grow out of culture and are underpinned with ideology.

If no religion, then tribalism/nationalism or some other ideology is still going to exist. Religion is actually more inclusive than many alternatives as it still allows for diversity under a broader 'in group' umbrella and allows for greater flexibility (although some more than others).

Not really - communities form, and as long as they don't disagree that much with their neighbours, then division is not so much on the cards. What tends to cause division is power structures and the need to cater for these - greed, expansionism, etc..

We have tribalism hardwired into us. We are no more meant for 'unity' than the global population of chimps or hyenas.

If you divide people into 2 groups and give one red shirts and the other blue, they will pretty much immediately start to display prejudice against blues and empathy for reds.

We tolerate the 'other' generally as long as that 'other' respects and doesn't impinge on our way of life. Unfortunately, we are a diverse and aggressive species so this frequently happens

Not something one can readily say about history is it - what ifs - but the power structures alone might have coped - monarchs, tyrants, elected leaders, etc.. Plenty, like myself and others, can live quite peaceably without religions so why not all? We don't need a set of morals imposed on us since it just seems to come quite naturally to treat others as being much the same as ourselves - which religion unfortunately tends to disrupt - since many do see themselves as different from others, and a product of their religion usually.

Educated 21st C Westerners are not really the 'average' person historically. The question is how would highly divided pre-modern societies have organised that would be more inclusive than religion? Creating the in group around something as ill defined as a religion is, in general, pretty good going.

Also, history very much seems to suggest that it doesn't come naturally to treat the other as ourselves otherwise it would have been far more common. It is just a comforting myth that absent religion we would have been much nicer and kinder to each other. Our closest relatives the chimps are vicious and cruel creatures at times and we don't blame religions for that.

If religions are all human creations, why should we assume that they are not indicative of human nature and that another man-made ideology would likely have been much better?

 

[Mock Turtle]

The power structures don't simply exist they grow out of culture and are underpinned with ideology.

If no religion, then tribalism/nationalism or some other ideology is still going to exist. Religion is actually more inclusive than many alternatives as it still allows for diversity under a broader 'in group' umbrella and allows for greater flexibility (although some more than others).



We have tribalism hardwired into us. We are no more meant for 'unity' than the global population of chimps or hyenas.

If you divide people into 2 groups and give one red shirts and the other blue, they will pretty much immediately start to display prejudice against blues and empathy for reds.

We tolerate the 'other' generally as long as that 'other' respects and doesn't impinge on our way of life. Unfortunately, we are a diverse and aggressive species so this frequently happens




Educated 21st C Westerners are not really the 'average' person historically. The question is how would highly divided pre-modern societies have organised that would be more inclusive than religion? Creating the in group around something as ill defined as a religion is, in general, pretty good going.

Also, history very much seems to suggest that it doesn't come naturally to treat the other as ourselves otherwise it would have been far more common. It is just a comforting myth that absent religion we would have been much nicer and kinder to each other. Our closest relatives the chimps are vicious and cruel creatures at times and we don't blame religions for that.

If religions are all human creations, why should we assume that they are not indicative of human nature and that another man-made ideology would likely have been much better?

Many things are indicative of human nature - we are hardly perfectly formed - such as greed, lust, unreasonable fear, aggressiveness, etc., but we are gradually overcoming much of this. It doesn't take having a religion to know this. The Humanist Code would I think not cause too much disapproval even amongst the religious. It's all the trappings of the religions, and varying between them, that tends to cause all the fuss.

All this seems to conveniently ignore all the laws most nations have to control behaviour. Why the need for anything else in this regard? Most of us would have no problem with religions if they just kept much of their beliefs to themselves without wanting to impose such on the rest of us. Too many countries want to do this - mainly Islamic ones at the moment, but it has been others in the past. How can we get around that problem?

And bonobos, our closest relatives, unlike chimps, are not that aggressive, which I'm sure you know.

 

[Augustus]

All this seems to conveniently ignore all the laws most nations have to control behaviour. Why the need for anything else in this regard? Most of us would have no problem with religions if they just kept much of their beliefs to themselves without wanting to impose such on the rest of us. Too many countries want to do this - mainly Islamic ones at the moment, but it has been others in the past.

Laws don't just spring out of thin air though, they develop from values which develop from ideology and culture. Without ideology the only reason to accept power structures is raw power.

Assuming reason alone works assumes humans a rational creatures, which science tells us we are not.

How can we get around that problem?

Accept that our way of life is not for everybody. Allow for localised governance whereby people can organise their own societies as they please. People who don't like it where they are can move. If some like Sharia Law let them have it.

The problem with globalist ideology is that it's about finding a system where everyone can live under the same umbrella: standardisation of values. The goal is not to make everyone like each other though, it's to get people who don't like each other to live without recourse to violence.

Unfortunately, well meaning people subscribe to a myth of global unity which is bound to fail.

Many things are indicative of human nature - we are hardly perfectly formed - such as greed, lust, unreasonable fear, aggressiveness, etc., but we are gradually overcoming much of this. It doesn't take having a religion to know this. The Humanist Code would I think not cause too much disapproval even amongst the religious. It's all the trappings of the religions, and varying between them, that tends to cause all the fuss.

This relates to modern society though, which is a very different question to pre-modern society. It's anachronistic to assume modern values and modern social structures could just have been adopted any time, any place.

Humanism is an offshoot of Christianity and Greek philosophy and wouldn't have developed without the right social conditions being in place which is why it is only really popular in Western Europe. That liberal democracy is associated with the West only makes some other cultures more determined to reject it. Our identity is created as much by who we don't want to be, as much as it is by who we want to be.

Assuming any ideology is likely to find global acceptance requires no less faith than the 2nd coming of Jesus given there is absolutely no evidence it is possible and plenty against it. The End of History thesis has been widely discredited by events.

And bonobos, our closest relatives, unlike chimps, are not that aggressive, which I'm sure you know.

Their lack of aggression is overstated, and while they are less aggressive than chimps, they are still aggressive in many situations including killing and eating other primates.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160317-do-bonobos-really-spend-all-their-time-having-sex

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...3342/Bonobos-not-all-peace-and-free-love.html[/QUOTE]

 

[David T]

One might say the same about any particular idea or proposal. Two sides to every coin and all.



Religions doesn't have to be involved though. They just tend to complicate our existence rather than benefit us. Abandoning religions would remove most of the divisions between us, and any who think that society would then break down I think have a poor view of human nature, when, if one travelled widely, as I have done, then one sees others as mostly much like oneself. The pressures of living in compact communities and the ease of communicating with others is probably the greatest influence on crime, but we seem to manage mostly. Perhaps just easing back on the religious beliefs a bit (eventually abandoning them) would help even more.

Well religion is predicated on getting rid of religion based on I am spiritual not religious. And of course that then turns into religion. So there are a lot of religious folks very dedicated to getting rid of religion religiously.. Everything that they disagree with is nonsense. That's normal!!!!

 

[joe1776]

I think agreeing to disagree is a really important skill on this forum that many either forget about or lack. Its much better to take this approach than engage in some of the futile and acrimonious arguments that happen here. Rather than debate, I prefer to discuss and explore ideas looking for points of agreement, trying to reconcile differences if possible, and if not agreeing to disagree.

Of course I believe that if God exists, He inspires us all whether we are aware of it or not. In regards the Founders of the world religions it would be a question of degrees. So in that regard I wouldn't consider whether their teachings measure up to what we believe to be true in the twenty first century, but did they enable the progress of moral and intellectual development for the peoples in the age They taught. Regardless, of whether They are from God I agree we all do have capacity to tell right from wrong, truth from falsehood, once again in degrees. This is part of the faculty of the human mind and spirit. Did the religious founders encourage the use of that faculty is another key question?

There's no need to answer any of my questions and I appreciate your common sense and sincerity in approaching discussions such as these on RF.

Adrian, this post, I hope, will isolate the essential nature of our differences on this topic:

From Wikipedia: Moral rationalism, also called ethical rationalism, is a view in meta-ethics according to which moral principles are knowable a priori, by reason alone. Some prominent figures in the history of philosophy who have defended moral rationalism are Plato and Immanuel Kant. Perhaps the most prominent figure in the history of philosophy who has rejected moral rationalism is David Hume.

The opposing hypothesis offered by Hume has been lately labeled the "Intuitionist Model" I agree with Hume and recent science is headed toward support of his hypothesis.

If the rationalist model is correct, you're right and I'm wrong because the rationalist model asserts that moral principles can be taught and learned. Therefore, it's potentially possible for the moral guidance offered in scripture to be useful.

If the intuitionist model is correct, I'm right and you're wrong. If I'm right, all the moral guidance created by reason, whether it's in the form of criminal laws, philosophical ethics, or sacred scripture, is sometimes coincidentally right -- the way a stopped clock is right twice a day. It's right only when it agrees with our conscience. And, when those creations of reason are in conflict with conscience, they are potential biases.

The best example of the Christian Bible's moral guidance in conflict with conscience I can think of happened in 1866. This was almost two centuries after, in about 1700, the nations of the world had begun to abolish legal slavery. Pope Pius IX, leading his huge Catholic contingent of Christians, said he found nothing in divine law against the buying, selling or trading of slaves. The point I want to emphasize is that according to scripture, this pope was right but, morally, he was wrong because his judgment was biased. The men who wrote that scripture were from an earlier age and a morally immature society. Consequently, they condoned the practice of slavery.

So, how could those men from an earlier age, citizens of a morally immature society, offer moral advice that would motivate moral progress yet condone slavery and the treatment of women as property? You may consider the question rhetorical.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Laws don't just spring out of thin air though, they develop from values which develop from ideology and culture. Without ideology the only reason to accept power structures is raw power.

Assuming reason alone works assumes humans a rational creatures, which science tells us we are not.

But mostly we do behave rationally despite science.

Accept that our way of life is not for everybody. Allow for localised governance whereby people can organise their own societies as they please. People who don't like it where they are can move. If some like Sharia Law let them have it.

The problem with globalist ideology is that it's about finding a system where everyone can live under the same umbrella: standardisation of values. The goal is not to make everyone like each other though, it's to get people who don't like each other to live without recourse to violence.

Unfortunately, well meaning people subscribe to a myth of global unity which is bound to fail.

Like the belief that their religion will prevail? About the same delusion in my view. And some are definitely able to be alleviated - the religious ones - by not being so belligerent and full of confidence that their belief is correct. Working towards global unity is a better bet.

And bonobos, our closest relatives, unlike chimps, are not that aggressive, which I'm sure you know.

Their lack of aggression is overstated, and while they are less aggressive than chimps, they are still aggressive in many situations including killing and eating other primates.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160317-do-bonobos-really-spend-all-their-time-having-sex

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...3342/Bonobos-not-all-peace-and-free-love.html

A lot better than chimps though, and better than even most other social creatures. And we appear to be a lot less aggressive than many or even most other social species.

 

[sun rise]

The reality is you cannot be selective because the fact is the believers are not, They embrace the good, the bad, and the ugly, which is the reality of ancient world view. It remains a fact that they define there sense of community and identity separate from the other religions.

I've found believers to be highly selective especially Christians and Muslims. Because scriptures are self-contradictory and people find what they are looking for.

I do agree there is a sense of community but as we've seen in action, ISIS hates Shi'a Muslims and considers them heretics to name just one clear example of the problem.

I said the vast majority of religiously motivated terror attacks are made by Islamic groups. As far as white supremacist terrorism goes, I have not looked up specific statistics, so can't speak on that.

That is certainly true. If we look at Muslims around the world, there are some communities who supply the majority of terrorists and some that are mostly peaceful. So culture and history has a great role to play.

 

[Augustus]

But mostly we do behave rationally despite science.

Mostly we don't care enough to extend the energy in rationality (most events are trivial).

Even with important things our evolved cognition makes us prone to irrationality (coalition instincts, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, sunk cost bias, etc.). Many countries are so divided politically that it's not possible that both sides are being rational (although it is possible neither are).

Like the belief that their religion will prevail? About the same delusion in my view. And some are definitely able to be alleviated - the religious ones - by not being so belligerent and full of confidence that their belief is correct. Working towards global unity is a better bet.

Why do you think that global unity is more probable than mutual non-interference?

A lot better than chimps though, and better than even most other social creatures. And we appear to be a lot less aggressive than many or even most other social species.

What makes you think we are less aggressive? I'd say our species has an unusually violent nature as reflected in our history.

 

[sayak83]

Reading an article and in the comments one read: "If they got rid of the brainwashing that is called Islam...."

Brainwashing....?

It got me thinking of all the terrorist that exist that are not Muslim I began to think that aside from the subject of so-called "Islamic terrorism," even if there were no member of the Abrahamic religion, human beings would find someone way to disagree violently. I say this because often times terrorism is allocated to Islam and there have been comments stating that getting rid of a belief system means to get rid of the terroristic mindset along with it. But the thing is, getting rid of an ideology does not necessarily mean getting rid of fanaticism. Recently there are news reports that there are people in Haiti rioting due to high gas prices. Human beings regardless of belief system will always terrorize each other over something.

Nationalism is the number one generator of violent fanatics in the modern world.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian, this post, I hope, will isolate the essential nature of our differences on this topic:

From Wikipedia: Moral rationalism, also called ethical rationalism, is a view in meta-ethics according to which moral principles are knowable a priori, by reason alone. Some prominent figures in the history of philosophy who have defended moral rationalism are Plato and Immanuel Kant. Perhaps the most prominent figure in the history of philosophy who has rejected moral rationalism is David Hume.

The opposing hypothesis offered by Hume has been lately labeled the "Intuitionist Model" I agree with Hume and recent science is headed toward support of his hypothesis.

If the rationalist model is correct, you're right and I'm wrong because the rationalist model asserts that moral principles can be taught and learned. Therefore, it's potentially possible for the moral guidance offered in scripture to be useful.

If the intuitionist model is correct, I'm right and you're wrong. If I'm right, all the moral guidance created by reason, whether it's in the form of criminal laws, philosophical ethics, or sacred scripture, is sometimes coincidentally right -- the way a stopped clock is right twice a day. It's right only when it agrees with our conscience. And, when those creations of reason are in conflict with conscience, they are potential biases.

The best example of the Christian Bible's moral guidance in conflict with conscience I can think of happened in 1866. This was almost two centuries after, in about 1700, the nations of the world had begun to abolish legal slavery. Pope Pius IX, leading his huge Catholic contingent of Christians, said he found nothing in divine law against the buying, selling or trading of slaves. The point I want to emphasize is that according to scripture, this pope was right but, morally, he was wrong because his judgment was biased. The men who wrote that scripture were from an earlier age and a morally immature society. Consequently, they condoned the practice of slavery.

So, how could those men from an earlier age, citizens of a morally immature society, offer moral advice that would motivate moral progress yet condone slavery and the treatment of women as property? You may consider the question rhetorical.

In that case we are both right and both wrong. It is neither one nor the other but both.

This dichotomy is similar to the nature vs nurture argument that raged for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

The problem has been resolved for many psychological traits including personality. Who we are is largely determined by both our genetic make up and our environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#Personality_traits

An elegant type of study, twin studies, have provided strong scientific basis for both the influence of nature and nurture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study

So we are dealt a certain hand in life, but we also have some choice as to making the best of the hand we are dealt.

Religion is clearly an environmental influence that can affect us for better or for worse. We can chose to draw nearer if we feel it has a positive influence, or move further away if negative. Religion after all should be a healing medicine. If it causes prejudice between peoples and hatred then it is like a poison so best to be without it.

You cite a good example with the Pope's statement and his views on scripture. In regards to the Christian scripture he was correct in that there was nothing against slavery. What else would we expect from a religion that is two thousand years old and has its roots in ancient cultures. Its probably no surprise that my nineteenth century religion abolishes slavery.

Then again has slavery really been abolished or have we replaced one form of slavery with another as we exist within an unjust economic system that promotes great disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Many in Asia for instance are forced to work long hours at very low pay to feed their families. In some ways they are just as much a slave as in a bygone era. I'm sure there are plenty of people in your country and mine that are either slaves or live in prisons of their own making.

 

[Britedream]

I have read the Qu'ran front to back twice.

Do you know Arabic very well?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Mostly we don't care enough to extend the energy in rationality (most events are trivial).

Still, most people seem to live reasonably normal lives. How do we compare human lives compared with any other species?

Even with important things our evolved cognition makes us prone to irrationality (coalition instincts, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, sunk cost bias, etc.). Many countries are so divided politically that it's not possible that both sides are being rational (although it is possible neither are).

Hey, whoever said we were perfect or couldn't be massively improved. Just look at the spectrum of intelligence, and even then the more intelligent are not necessarily going to behave better. We still have much inherited from our past. Did religion actually help us or hinder us? For example, why did it take so long before even rudimentary justice came to the common man (or woman) - beginning as late as the 18th century probably? Did religion aid or hinder this?

Why do you think that global unity is more probable than mutual non-interference?

Just my notion that we share more than what makes us disagree.

What makes you think we are less aggressive? I'd say our species has an unusually violent nature as reflected in our history.

I haven't read Pinker's book, but he seems to make a good case for it being so - apart from the two World Wars. And the violence seems to be inflicted upon us. Do we vote to go to war? I think not.