"Human nature" is too easy. That's why psychology, sociology, philosophy, and world history complicate things with the "nature versus nurture" question.
"Nurture" includes religion. And all three Abrahamic religions have *nurtured* literally "atrocious" holy warrior ideologies. Confucianism doesn't nurture that. Jainism doesn't either. And neither of these latter two have a single genocidal outbreak in their long histories.
If "human nature" doesn't work for you, I'm open to other terms. Evolutionary competition, whatever. It's something more fundamental than "nurture" and many aspects are not even limited to Homo sapiens. "Nurture" is weaponized to tap into it or, as you similarly described, suppress it,.
Yep, I didn't mention Buddhism because of its Chakravartan tradition (which, to be fair, isn't representative of the major Theravadan and Mahayana branches).
I prefer the term "nurture" over the evolutionary frame - doesn't that tilt things back toward your original "nature" thrust? "Nurture" to me connotes human-intentional "cultivation" of the young. Teach them God chooses people and damns others, and the Chosen are "good," and you're raising a lot of Cains.
That's the thing, this tribal stuff pops up all over, it's emergent regardless of "nurture" - it can be either be suppressed or weaponized by "nurture". So it's more fundamental, natural, evolutionary, whatever. And humans don't have the monopoly on it.
Okay, I take your point. But still, the three Abrahamic "tribes," with their geographic spread, are spilling disproportionately more blood in that weaponization - and doing it for explicitly religious reasons, which was the author's point in the OP you minimized to start all of this.
And it all traces back to a handful of metaphysically atrocious claims in the Bible's Torah. Reduce their cultural sway and it seems plausible you'd reduce that "emergence."
Nobody's denying aggressive instincts exist in individuals, tribes, and non-primates, or that they're "more fundamental, natural, evolutionary." Nature produces malign seeds. Cultures can water them or uproot them.
We've gone far enough. I see your point about nature - it's self-evident, really. Equally so, to me, is the role of genocidal "divinely-revealed" religions that exacerbate it. And that's culture.
"doing it for explicitly religious reasons" just doesn't make sense and, as I said, a distraction - there are far and away too many significantly important non-religious factors (land, resources, outside meddling, etc) for middle east factional conflict that are waved away through this framing. If religion was such a factor, ISIS would not be suicide bombing Iran before other more obvious religiously motivated targets and Israel would have zero chance of diplomatic ties with SA and Egypt before Iran - it just doesn't hold water. It only applies as far as motivating the mob as needed, not the real power brokers.
Your list of other motivations is also valid. But the "land" claim goes back to Isaac and Ishmael, and are explicitly cited by Israeli cabinet officials to justify the genocide in Gaza.
ISIS is indeed motivated by "outside meddling" by the US, but the Sunni/Shiite split goes back to a dispute in the Qur'an following Mohammad's death.
So again, I agree: nothing is simple and everything is "over-determined," not just caused by one factor. But I have to say you evince a strong resistance to the cultural/religious factor as central to that mix.
fwiw I'm glad to learn the factoid about no history of genocide with confucianism and jainism - if life someday makes room for a spiritual dedication again jainism was top of the list for me to have a stroll with
"Human nature" is too easy. That's why psychology, sociology, philosophy, and world history complicate things with the "nature versus nurture" question.
"Nurture" includes religion. And all three Abrahamic religions have *nurtured* literally "atrocious" holy warrior ideologies. Confucianism doesn't nurture that. Jainism doesn't either. And neither of these latter two have a single genocidal outbreak in their long histories.
And yet Sinhala buddhists genocided the Tamils in Sri Lanka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Genocide#:~:text=Acts%20of%20genocide%20against%20the,land%20grabs%20and%20ethnic%20cleansing.
If "human nature" doesn't work for you, I'm open to other terms. Evolutionary competition, whatever. It's something more fundamental than "nurture" and many aspects are not even limited to Homo sapiens. "Nurture" is weaponized to tap into it or, as you similarly described, suppress it,.
Yep, I didn't mention Buddhism because of its Chakravartan tradition (which, to be fair, isn't representative of the major Theravadan and Mahayana branches).
I prefer the term "nurture" over the evolutionary frame - doesn't that tilt things back toward your original "nature" thrust? "Nurture" to me connotes human-intentional "cultivation" of the young. Teach them God chooses people and damns others, and the Chosen are "good," and you're raising a lot of Cains.
That's the thing, this tribal stuff pops up all over, it's emergent regardless of "nurture" - it can be either be suppressed or weaponized by "nurture". So it's more fundamental, natural, evolutionary, whatever. And humans don't have the monopoly on it.
Okay, I take your point. But still, the three Abrahamic "tribes," with their geographic spread, are spilling disproportionately more blood in that weaponization - and doing it for explicitly religious reasons, which was the author's point in the OP you minimized to start all of this.
And it all traces back to a handful of metaphysically atrocious claims in the Bible's Torah. Reduce their cultural sway and it seems plausible you'd reduce that "emergence."
Nobody's denying aggressive instincts exist in individuals, tribes, and non-primates, or that they're "more fundamental, natural, evolutionary." Nature produces malign seeds. Cultures can water them or uproot them.
We've gone far enough. I see your point about nature - it's self-evident, really. Equally so, to me, is the role of genocidal "divinely-revealed" religions that exacerbate it. And that's culture.
"doing it for explicitly religious reasons" just doesn't make sense and, as I said, a distraction - there are far and away too many significantly important non-religious factors (land, resources, outside meddling, etc) for middle east factional conflict that are waved away through this framing. If religion was such a factor, ISIS would not be suicide bombing Iran before other more obvious religiously motivated targets and Israel would have zero chance of diplomatic ties with SA and Egypt before Iran - it just doesn't hold water. It only applies as far as motivating the mob as needed, not the real power brokers.
Your list of other motivations is also valid. But the "land" claim goes back to Isaac and Ishmael, and are explicitly cited by Israeli cabinet officials to justify the genocide in Gaza.
ISIS is indeed motivated by "outside meddling" by the US, but the Sunni/Shiite split goes back to a dispute in the Qur'an following Mohammad's death.
So again, I agree: nothing is simple and everything is "over-determined," not just caused by one factor. But I have to say you evince a strong resistance to the cultural/religious factor as central to that mix.
fwiw I'm glad to learn the factoid about no history of genocide with confucianism and jainism - if life someday makes room for a spiritual dedication again jainism was top of the list for me to have a stroll with