Is It Possible for Humanity to Create a Peaceful World with Religion in it?

[Edwardo Piet]

While my gut would like to answer in the affirmative, reason compels me to be skeptical about my intuition.

That's good

 I'm curious about other peoples' thoughts on this?

That's great

Do you think religion is peaceful?

Overall it's effect on the world? No. Individually: Fundamentalism, as far as I know, in all religions besides Jainism are harmful... due to the fundamentals of the religions. Even Buddhism... when taking too literally can be harmful when it comes to the concept of Karma.

Does it ultimately hold us back from creating a peaceful world?

Yes but I think it's because it's one form of dogma, jingoism, tribalism or group "Us and them" thinking. I think nationalism can be just as dangerous and hell... for example.

Or, even without religion, would we still find ways to be hostile to one another?

Yes I think irrationality and faith is the problem. DOGMA is the problem. That applied intensely to nationalism or Marxism or... any extremist view, doesn't have to be religious, without evidence and logic applied, can be dangerous I think. The problem is intense and passionate fanatical beliefs forced onto and imposed onto others, and if not accepted violence is taken. Whether that's religious, political or moralist: The problem is intense intolerance for other views that becomes violet "Wait, they don't agree with us? KILL THEM" -- whether that's religious, political or moralist or whatever... that's bad.

Can peace be obtained? What is your formula for peace?

Technology that gave everyone force fields so no one could harm anyone would be nice. Either that or there were no idiots to start a war in the first place... if everyone was a pacifist no one would have to defend themselves. Unfortunately defense is necessary. If it weren't necessary then there could be world peace.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Is It Possible for Humanity to Create a Peaceful World?

No. Doesn't matter if it has religion or not. People will always want other people's stuff, and that causes conflict.

Thank you, sir.  I appreciate your candid response. 

Out of curiosity, does the existence of conflict have to be negative?  Can humanity create a world that acknowledges our differences but allows us to engage those differences in a non-violent, open-minded way.  Is the present condition of humanity ultimately programmed into them, or can they choose to be different and construct a more peaceful world if they wanted to; is our mindset the main barrier to peace?

[The Grand Nudger]

Can society create a world that acknowledges that one of those differences is violence and aggressiveness?  Or is that the one verboten thing that must be eradicated...reverse adolf style, lol? 

Or, to put it another way...when did we become such pansies? We never seem comfortable acknowledging the value of otherwsie negatively perceived traits, as in the relentless and aggressive assualt on some unfinished job - plenty of homeless and hungry in the world that could use houses and kibble, or the merciless slaughter of pests and disease vectors. It's all kumbayah and avoidance nowadays...even avoiding bad sounding words, like violence, aggression, assertiveness. I;m sure they can be, and would be, scrubbed for the examples above. Doing those things..that's not [insert negatively valued attribute here].

OFC, I'd mention decisive miltary action against despots the world over as yet another way to increase the peace, but for many...that would be too far into negative territory despite it's effectiveness. These dreams of world peace, as it were...in addition to having their origins in fantasy always seem to be comprised of further fantasy even when they're divorced from that tree. We'd prefer to imagine than to effect, if the action seems counter-intuitive to the ideal.

All of this being a long winded way of slightly rephrasing the question you asked. -Is- the existence of the sort of conflict we may have in mind negative? Unless we can get a list togther, or a line..wherein one side is negative and the other isn't...and unambiguosly so, both the questions and the answers will be...effectively, meaningless....we can't even be sure we're all discussing the same things.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Thanks for your candid and direct response, Rhythm. 

Can society create a world that acknowledges that one of those differences is violence and aggressiveness?  Or is that the one verboten thing that must be eradicated...reverse adolf style, lol? 

Or, to put it another way...when did we become such pansies?  We never seem comfortable acknowledging the value of otherwsie negatively perceived traits, as in the relentless and aggressive assualt on some unfinished job - plenty of homeless and hungry in the world that could use houses and kibble, or the merciless slaughter of pests and disease vectors.  It's all kumbayah and avoidance nowadays...even avoiding bad sounding words, like violence, aggression, assertiveness.  I;m sure they can be, and would be, scrubbed for the examples above.  Doing those things..that's not [insert negatively valued attribute here].

OFC, I'd mention decisive miltary action against despots the world over as yet another way to increase the peace, but for many...that would be too far into negative territory despite it's effectiveness.  These dreams of world peace, as it were...in addition to having their origins in fantasy always seem to be comprised of further fantasy even when they're divorced from that tree.  We'd prefer to imagine than to effect, if the action seems counter-intuitive to the ideal.

All of this being a long winded way of slightly rephrasing the question you asked.  -Is- the existence of the sort of conflict we may have in mind negative?  Unless we can get a list togther, or a line..wherein one side is negative and the other isn't...and unambiguosly so, both the questions and the answers will be...effectively, meaningless....we can't even be sure we're all discussing the same things.

I'm sorry sir, but I disagree with the part in bold.  I think my post and yours have just illustrated an important point relating to the challenge of communicating effectively and clearly with others; we often try to make sense of others via our own truths and thinking patterns.  However, it is very likely that others may have a different way of seeing things, which is irregular for us but is completely normal for them.

It's all kumbayah and avoidance nowadays...even avoiding bad sounding words, like violence, aggression, assertiveness.  I;m sure they can be, and would be, scrubbed for the examples above.  Doing those things..that's not [insert negatively valued attribute here].

Avoidance and being artificially kumbayah are poor ways to manage difference; IMO, people only grow resentful and will eventually renew their conflict in the future.

These dreams of world peace, as it were...in addition to having their origins in fantasy always seem to be comprised of further fantasy even when they're divorced from that tree.  We'd prefer to imagine than to effect, if the action seems counter-intuitive to the ideal.

I'm not interested in fantasy.  Can we create a realistic way for people to peacefully manage their differences?  If this is ultimately going to be attributed to fantasy or wishful thinking, then is this the result of it being an objective fact, or is it a result of personal opinions, sir?

Unless we can get a list togther, or a line..wherein one side is negative and the other isn't...and unambiguosly so, both the questions and the answers will be...effectively, meaningless....we can't even be sure we're all discussing the same things.

IMO, I do not think that you and I are on the same page here; I do not think that we are discussing the same things.  Hence, I can only imagine how much of a challenge this would be on a worldly scale.  Do you have any suggestions, sir?



Again, thanks for your candid and direct response, Rhythm. I look forward to reading your response, sir.  Live long and prosper.

[John V]

Is It Possible for Humanity to Create a Peaceful World?

No. Doesn't matter if it has religion or not. People will always want other people's stuff, and that causes conflict.

Thank you, sir.  I appreciate your candid response. 

Out of curiosity, does the existence of conflict have to be negative?  Can humanity create a world that acknowledges our differences but allows us to engage those differences in a non-violent, open-minded way.  Is the present condition of humanity ultimately programmed into them, or can they choose to be different and construct a more peaceful world if they wanted to; is our mindset the main barrier to peace?

It's programmed in.

[Edwardo Piet]

People could choose to be different and construct a more peaceful world if they wanted to. There is no cosmic teleology.

[abaris]

OFC, I'd mention decisive miltary action against despots the world over as yet another way to increase the peace, but for many...that would be too far into negative territory despite it's effectiveness.

What I put into question is the effectivness itself, not the morality. When - after WWÍI - was it ever effective if the peoples in question didn't rise up to do the first step. There are examples of successful revolutions. Such as in Portugal in 1974 or to some degree the fall of the Iron Curtain.

But there has never been a successful outside intervention since 1945, which followed entirely different parameters than the ones we're dealing with today. Highly industrialised countries of the first world with at least some democratic history. Maybe there's one exception, and that's the fun fact, the Vietnamese intervention at Cambodia in 1979. But there the goal wasn't even to get rid of Pol Pot, but to ensure border security.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry sir, but I disagree with the part in bold.  I think my post and yours have just illustrated an important point relating to the challenge of communicating effectively and clearly with others; we often try to make sense of others via our own truths and thinking patterns.  However, it is very likely that others may have a different way of seeing things, which is irregular for us but is completely normal for them.

You disagree to what?  You must have an internal list of of things you perceive to be negative conflict or the question you asked is meaningless on it's own terms.  

With that in mind, the question of whether or not whatever we perceive to be negative conflict actually -is- negative conflict is asking the same question, only more directly and with fewer unspoken assumptions.  Answering my question would answer your own.  If some example "x" of negative conflict was, in fact "positive" then the answer to your question would be no.  The existence of conflict does not always have to be negative.  It would be convenient, and it's highly likely, that at least -some- of the negative conflict we have in mind is only negative because of our mis-appraisals of it...identifying candidates would, by default, make for a more "peaceful world" by removing those examples of "negative conflict" from the pile.  We were just being cynical pessimists, as we chased hopeful idealism, a delicious irony.  

Avoidance and being artificially kumbayah are poor ways to manage difference; IMO, people only grow resentful and will eventually renew their conflict in the future.

-exactly why I prefer a hook to the jaw. Get's it out there and done with...and when it;s over, you can buy each other a beer, now you have memories together.  

I'm not interested in fantasy.  Can we create a realistic way for people to peacefully manage their differences?  If this is ultimately going to be attributed to fantasy or wishful thinking, then is this the result of it being an objective fact, or is it a result of personal opinions, sir?

People -do- manage their differences peacefully, in the crushing majority, don't they?  My wife and I don't take it outside when I want to watch a romcom and she wants to watch UFC.  
Maybe we should.....but that's beside the point.  

Without knowing which differences we're talking about, and it can't be many of them because most -are- resolved peacefully, then we won't know what's being asked.  You're being ambiguous, fishing in the hopes that your contributors will know what you're talking about.  The desire to peacefully resolve or manage some conflict -is- rooted in fantasy, for all of the reasons already mentioned in thread.  Those are, point of fact, the sorts of examples where we see conflicts resolved "less than peacefully".  People don't beat the shit out of each other with any regularity over their differences in programming preference.....they do over scarcity of resources and what they perceive to be oppression or persecution.  

IMO, I do not think that you and I are on the same page here; I do not think that we are discussing the same things.  Hence, I can only imagine how much of a challenge this would be on a worldly scale.  Do you have any suggestions, sir?

It's difficult to know, it's not as though you've nailed down what you were talking about.  Even in this request, suggestions for what?  A list?  Let's start with a tricky one.

Is deposing a tyrant by military force a positive or negative conflict, and could or does it lead to a more peaceful world?  Where does that fall on the list-line?

Or suggestion to move towards a more peaceful world?  Realistic suggestions.  There are plenty of things that -could- work, in principle.  We've tried some of them, their effect is spotty at best and counterproductive at worst.  The big two contributors to "non-peace" that stand out are disparity of access to wealth and resources, and institutional abuse.  We've tried wealth redistribution and regime change.  I don;t know how effective any solution along those lines would be without access to force, violence. Whether this qualifies or not depends on the status of that list I was mentioning. Does the proper application of negative conflict (if either -is- negative conflict) lead to a more peaceful world? Or would they, in reality as oppsed to principle, lead to a spiraling fall toward a less peaceful world? For that matter, would peaceful resolution actually lead to peaceful outcomes (appeasement didn't work in ww2) or would it lead to more of the same as the former? Without some specificity as to what were talking about, how can we determine the status or make suggestions? At some ppoint, that has to materialize or this -is- just an exercise in nebulous fantasies regarding conflict, peace, and resolution in the abstract.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I’d like to begin this post by openly stating that I’m simply a student of conflict resolution; I’m interested in it, but I do not have all of the answers and still have a lot to learn. Thus, I’m one guy, but IMO, when multiple people put their heads together, they can often produce something which was inconceivable to an individual mind.  Hence, I have truly appreciated the unique insights that various AF members have contributed so far.  I’m definitely learning a lot from everyone.
 

Without some specificity as to what were talking about, how can we determine the status or make suggestions? At some point, that has to materialize or this -is- just an exercise in nebulous fantasies regarding conflict, peace, and resolution in the abstract.

 
First off, thanks for your post, Rhythm.  It appears that I’m guilty of using terms loosely and ambiguously here. When I say “peace”, I don’t mean the following: mindless agreement and artificial kumbaya; the avoidance of tough issues and hoping they will go away; loss of individualism/self-determination and blind conformity to some large group identity; no disagreement; perfection/utopia; no competition; no conflict/difference; no challenges/obstacles.  Hence, IMO, these approaches do not acknowledge the fact that we are an imperfect species and are negative conflict resolution techniques.  However, I understand that what is perceived as negative in one context may not be negative in another context; this will be addressed later.
 
Now, regarding constructive conflict resolution approaches, I mean the following: accepting the fact that conflict is inevitable; engaging conflict proactively, not reactively; adopting an us against the problem mentality (not us against them), which allows people to save face and engage in joint problem-solving/brainstorming; separating the people from the problem, which humanizes others and increases our ability to view conflict objectively and consider alternative viewpoints; active listening and understanding the other side (understanding does not mean agreement); collaborative, interest-based negotiating; putting yourself in other peoples’ skin and having the ability to reframe conflict in a more objective manner; developing intercultural competence (I’ll elaborate on this later); embracing diversity while preserving individual uniqueness; open communication and dialog (Ury, 2007); encouraging dissenting opinions and playing the devil’s advocate, which shows that you’re open to criticism and are making it safe for others to speak their mind (Patterson, 2012).  Hence, in citing these conflict resolution techniques as constructive, I mean to say that they are constructive in our current world where social connection, interpersonal relationships, and interdependency among Earth’s various cultures are crucial for our growth and advancement as a species (Dana, 2006; Ury,2007).

Naturally, this is not a full proof/complete list.  These approaches are just the more common constructive conflict resolution techniques that I have learned in my conflict resolution studies.
 

exactly why I prefer a hook to the jaw. Get's it out there and done with...and when it;s over, you can buy each other a beer, now you have memories together.  Wink

Or, rather than right hook each other and lose brain cells, why not right hook the problem in the jaw together and have more coherent and complete memories as a result? 
 

With that in mind, the question of whether or not whatever we perceive to be negative conflict actually -is- negative conflict is asking the same question, only more directly and with fewer unspoken assumptions.  Answering my question would answer your own.  If some example "x" of negative conflict was, in fact "positive" then the answer to your question would be no.  The existence of conflict does not always have to be negative.  It would be convenient, and it's highly likely, that at least -some- of the negative conflict we have in mind is only negative because of our mis-appraisals of it...identifying candidates would, by default, make for a more "peaceful world" by removing those examples of "negative conflict" from the pile.  We were just being cynical pessimists, as we chased hopeful idealism, a delicious irony.

I like this.  Based on my studies of conflict resolution, our primitive  fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses lead to attacking, avoiding, and accommodating (known as the three A's), which are viewed as negative conflict management tools (Dana, 2006; Ury,2007).  However, this ultimately depends on the context.  If we found ourselves existing in a state of nature, then the fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses would actually be good conflict management techniques, as they would help ensure our survival.  In addition, if we find ourselves in a dark alley late at night in a bad neighborhood or are held up at gun point, then our primitive reflexes may make the difference between life or death; thus, in this context, trying to apply the constructive conflict resolution techniques listed above may lead to negative conflict.

However, our primitive reflexes can get us into trouble in our personal and professional relationships (especially in workplace/organizational contexts): they often breed misunderstanding and poor conflict management. Thus, our primitive reflexes inhibit our ability to meaningfully connect with others (Dana, 2006; Patterson, 2012): social connection is what makes humanity unique; it is the essence of our progress and growth (Lieberman, 2013)).  Hence, the constructive conflict resolution techniques that have been discussed in this post would seem to be relevant to our multicultural world where interdependency is vital to the success and growth of our species.  Do you see things differently?
 

People -do- manage their differences peacefully, in the crushing majority, don't they?  My wife and I don't take it outside when I want to watch a romcom and she wants to watch UFC.

I like the example that you used with your wife.  Many people already do manage conflict well on an individual scale.  However can we take those skills and apply them on a global/intercultural scale?  This is the question that I’m interested in answering, which was poorly communicated by me in the thread title, op, and other posts of mine in this thread. 

According to Michelle LeBaron, author of Bridging Cultural Conflicts, there are  five common cultural traps, which impede our ability to manage conflict/difference on a global/intercultural scale: the automatic ethnocentricity trap, which is viewing our way of life (in-group) as normal while viewing the ways of outgroups as abnormal; the taxonomy trap, which is the trap of thinking that we can categorize all cultural information, especially through stereotypes and generalizations; the complexity trap, which assumes that cultural complexity and dynamism are too difficult and hard to track, which makes intercultural effectiveness seem impossible; the universalism trap, which assumes that all people share the same commonalities and overlooks important cultural differences; the separation trap, which is the trap of primarily focusing on our differences/divisions and overlooking the commonalities we share across the boundaries of Earth’s many identities and worldviews.  (LeBaron, 2003)

Overall, LeBaron’s aim is to enhance her reader’s mindful awareness of their particular cultural starting points.  Specifically, this means that we understand that our individual and cultural  norms are a vehicle for us to make sense of our surroundings and develop ways of life that are valid and meaningful to us; however, our ways do not constitute objective truth: other cultures also have their starting points which are valid and meaningful to them.  Therefore, mindful awareness is a tool, which allows us to understand these differences and engage them constructively, which results in the development of cultural fluency: the ability to skillfully shift through various cultural frames while bridging cultural misunderstandings and making connections with other cultures.  Hence, cultural fluency adds to our conflict resolution repertoire and improves our conflict fluency: conflict fluency is having the ability to put our fear and negativity on the sidelines, so that we can engage cultural differences with a “spirit of inquiry” or viewing conflict as a positive learning opportunity; thus, improving our ability to skillfully manage conflict in various cultural contexts (LeBaron, 2003).

Hence, would you say that LeBaron's approach of improving intercultural competence is useful in helping us constructively manage cultural differences and handling conflict more constructively on a global scale? What are your thoughts?

People don't beat the shit out of each other with any regularity over their differences in programming preference.....they do over scarcity of resources and what they perceive to be oppression or persecution.

 
Regarding scarcity of resources, I’m reminded of the classic example of the two kids fighting over a single orange in their household: both of them are on the verge of getting physical and perceiving the other as oppressing them or depriving them of resources or whatever.  Eventually, their mother enters and mediates the situation.  Boy A says that he wants the peel of the orange for his science project, and Boy B says that he is hungry and wants to eat the orange (minus the peel); in their anger, neither boy clearly communicated these interests to the other.  The mother then cuts the peel off the orange and gives it to Boy A while giving the actual orange to Boy B to eat. 

Naturally, human conflict is not so simple, but the above example (this was one of the first lessons I learned in my conflict resolution program) reminds me to ask the following questions: if parties are in conflict over scarce resources, then have they fully explored all of the possibilities? Have they clearly communicated why the resources are so important to them?

In conclusion, I hope that I have made a dent in clarifying what I mean by negative and constructive conflict management.  It is my hope that my language is less nebulous than it was before; but ultimately, you will have to be the judge of that, sir.  Thanks for your time, attention, and patience. 

P.S.  By citing resources, my intent is to show that this is not just me talking: the ideas that I've expressed in my post are valid and effective ways of managing conflict, which have been successfully practiced, articulated, and written about by conflict resolution experts and professionals who are much wiser and experienced than me.  Hence, my intent is to try and deliver a meaningful post to your inquiries and not just my opinions.  Again, you will have to be the judge of this, sir.  However, as I mentioned in the intro, I still have a lot to learn about conflict resolution.  It is my hope that you and other AF members can share your wisdom and accumulated knowledge here, so that we can gain a greater understanding of what it means to constructively manage conflict in our world.  Thanks.  Live long and prosper AF members and anyone else.  

References

Dana, Daniel (2006).  Managing Differences.  Kansas: MTI Publications.

LeBaron, Michelle (2003).  Bridging Cultural Conflicts: A new approach for a changing world.  San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 

Lieberman, Matthew D. (2013).  Social: Why are brains are wired to connect.  New York: Crown Publishers.

Patterson, Kerry (2012). Crucial Conversations: Tools for talking when the stakes are high. New York: McGraw Hill.

Ury, William (2007). The Power of a Positive No: Save the deal, save the relationship, and still say no.  USA: Bantam Books.

 

[Edwardo Piet]

Epic. Reminds me of when I was an OU student years back.

Awesome post as always, Kernel.

Goodnight guys I think I can finally get some sleep now, I feel better.