Why the "There are Fewer Wars" Argument for Atheism doesn't Work

Here's Why I Think This Argument is Flawed

One of the arguments I hear in support of the decline of religion is that because we are less religious we have fewer wars. This is a case often made by secularists and modernists (not necessarily atheists).

The usual line of reasoning goes like this: “Since humanity became less religious, we’ve had less wars. There is no longer fighting over people’s beliefs and we can now be peaceful.”

Someone opposed to this thought may say in return, “Sure, there are less wars, but the twentieth century had more deaths from war than any other century before. And the motivation of the most violent groups during that time was not a traditionally religious one.”

The secularist (for lack of a better title) will then reply: “Sure, more deaths, but less wars.” And, if they’re really ardent, they may say, “Those in the twentieth century weren’t atheistic anyway.”

Is this a good argument? I think not. Here’s why:

First, it is very hard to prove, from a historical perspective, that those violent groups in the twentieth century weren’t fundamentally atheistic. They may have been making up their own religion without God (or gods), but we all live by a religion. It’s impossible not to.

Second, I would much rather have more wars than more deaths. I obviously agree that both are bad, but if I had to pick one, the choice is easy. Why is war bad in the first place? Because people die. And so if we can have more wars and less deaths instead of more deaths and less wars, then I’m certainly on the former side.

Third, wars didn’t used to be as violent. Read most any book on historic wars. They were terrible, for sure. But not nearly as terrible or horrific as modern wars. I’d much rather have rather polite wars as opposed to those we see in the modern world.

Forth, and most importantly, it’s not exactly because of virtue that we have less wars but because of fear. At the heart of the argument, I outlined above is the motivation to show that religion (and Christianity in particular) is necessarily violent. The argument attempts to show that since we’ve progressed in the modern world, we are therefore more moral. There are several issues with this, but my biggest one is that it is not apparent that we no longer have wars because we’re good.

If a large-scale war erupted today, the whole world would be in on it. War is much more costly now. We could effectively wipe the entirety of human life off the planet with a war. And it does not seem probable, to me at least, that we are holding back from such a war, such a catastrophe, because we are “good.” It seems as though we hold back because we are scared, as we should be. But fear is not morality.

For example, I can be afraid to shoplift because of the legal consequences involved. But this fear, this fear of the results of my immortality, does not equate to goodness. Perhaps this fear keeps me from shoplifting, but it is because of the fear, and not because of my goodness, that I abstain. The same is true with modern war. As I said, we are and ought to be afraid of the consequences, but this does not make us more or less moral than our ancestors.

In the end, I find this argument against religion and for “progress” unappealing and void.