Parsing Statements
With this in mind, let us consider the specific examples offered by Daniel Dennett:
Al Queda and Hamas terrorism is still Islam’s responsibility—this is tricky since the problem that Islam has in dealing with terrorism in its name is the doctrine of abrogation whereby the peaceful proclamations of the early preaching of Muhammad are abrogated by his later militant preaching.
Abortion-clinic bombing is still Christianity’s responsibility—there are no examples of Jesus, His apostles, His disciples, or the early church either teaching the committing of violence or engaging in violence. In fact, the exact opposite was taught and practiced. Thus, any violence done in the name of Jesus, the Bible, Christianity etc. is a repudiation of the teachings of Jesus, His apostles, His disciples, and the early church and cannot be placed at their feet.
It may be of interest to note that both Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett uncritically and without providing statistics, correlate Islamic and Hindu terrorism with “Christian” abortion-clinic bombings. I provide some of the statistics in this regard in my essay The Dawkins Correlation.
The murderous activities of Hindu extremists are still Hinduism’s responsibility—while “Hinduism” is actually a term that encompasses a wide range of theologies. However, generally speaking, and hopefully not as grossly general as is the New Atheist habit, Hinduism has a problem in this area that is perhaps best described in the following statement:
“In the most popular dialogue on karma, read by all devout Hindus in The Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna is given no option on the specific issue of war. Arjuna begs his charioteer, the god Krishna, for a reason why he should go into battle against his teachers, members of his family and friends: ‘Should not we whose eyes are open turn away from so great a crime? If you deem the path of understanding more excellent than the path of action, O Krishna, why do you urge me to do this savage deed?’ The god Krishna gives Arjuna no sops against desolation, not even the easy answers of a martial or proselytizing culture—a just war, a pious war, a war of liberation. Krishna answers Arjuna’s plea with the implacable words: ‘Because you are bound to act. Only action will save you from the bondage of action.’”1
Thus, savage deeds are merely an outworking an inevitable and irresistible wooing by karma.
But what of the issue of weighing good and wicked on a balance and the suggestion and conclusion, “I think you’ll find that those don’t quite equal as at the margin”?
This is another case of a stunningly obvious but conveniently overlooked retort: regardless of chronology, geography or theology the fact is that the overwhelming majority of religious people, by a long shot, have been perfectly peaceful do-gooders. Let us consider the example the Crusades when while fighting for the cause of stopping conquering Muslims shockingly violent abuses were done in the name of Christianity. Weight in the balance the whole planet’s Christian population vs. those who actually took part in the Crusades and you will readily perceive that the overwhelming majority had nothing to do with it. Even if some did not partake but did support it, such as the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the majority of the world’s Christian population at that time not only did not partake but may have even been absolutely unaware, depending on how far away they lived.