An apologetic that destroys itself

A while back I went to a lecture titled “The Myth of Religious Violence”. It’s an idea that is also propagated by the likes of Karen Armstrong. The idea is, religion didn’t use to be separate from everything else. Religion was culture. If you didn’t like the religion of your tribe, you couldn’t pick another, the concept of doing that didn’t exist. When secular life began to develop, secular leaders began to blame religion for violence. Beside the absurdity of that, if you go back to the premise of this argument, it says that all civilizations that survived long enough for us to know anything about them had some form of culture that they used to hold themselves together, to live peacefully, to teach their children how to behave, to decide how to deal with neighbors. In other words, there weren’t bad people then religion came along and fixed it, people were always trying to be good and trying to make sense of things, then recently we started calling any codification of that or ritual related to that “religion”. You can’t maintain this argument and maintain an argument for any particular god or goddess.

… Beside the absurdity of that, if you go back to the premise of this argument, it says that all civilizations that survived long enough for us to know anything about them had some form of culture that they used to hold themselves together, to live peacefully, to teach their children how to behave, to decide how to deal with neighbors. In other words, there weren't bad people then religion came along and fixed it, people were always trying to be good and trying to make sense of things, then recently we started calling any codification of that or ritual related to that "religion". You can't maintain this argument and maintain an argument for any particular god or goddess.
I don't know anything about “The Myth of Religious Violence" but I have thought about the development of ancient societies. Seems to me people have been people for a long time. And that for all their noble inclinations, there have always been the egomaniacs and ruthless ones and plenty of follower types. These groups would manipulate whatever religious or societal meta-system was constructed. And what's with the Myth of Religious Violence? Are they trying to say that religions which are founded on tribalism and self-preservation, didn't initiate an awful lot of violence against The Other Ones. I searched “The Myth of Religious Violence" on YouTube found a few lectures by Prof William Cavanaugh Victoria University Wellington. and: "The Crusades and the Myth of Religious Violence - Constructing the Myth of the "Christian Dark Ages"" Maybe I listen in on Billy see what they are talking about, then again maybe not. Is it worth the effort?

Without looking it up, what was there in the older genesis stories, seven times the earth became heavily populated. Then there were plagues and natural disasters that lowered the populations. They never told of any wars. I think history agrees with you.

FWIW, here’s the lecture I heard.] Karen Armstrong’s article is very similar, I don’t remember where I saw it. This has some presentations in the beginning that can be skipped.