"I don't think humanity has violent tendencies that are so intrinsic they can't be eliminated, and I don't agree with pessimist rhetoric like this. As bad as the world may seem at the moment, if one studies human history, there is a clear trend of improvement. In most Western cultures, we no longer settle disputes through bloodshed, duels or familial vengeance; for the most part, there is a rule of law, and it works. I see no reason why we cannot extend this state of affairs to the whole world. Violent fundamentalism may be the greatest obstacle, but we have overcome it in the past and we can continue to do so"

This "rule of law" you elude to is a farce. Laws are tools of human beings to impose their rule on a society, nothing more or less. Who makes the laws the govern us? A bunch of upper-class elites (mostly businessmen and lawyers) who are involved in govt. to see that their best interests are served, not those of the average joe!

Note: as much as I hate the system as it is, I DO acknowledge the need for some kind of order to exist to prevent society from collaping into total anarchy. But it doesn't change the fact that this society is becoming increasingly intrusive...

While it's true that most people no longer settle disputes through open duels, violence in western cultrue is far from dead. Go to any neighborhood in L.A., Chicago, or any other major city and you'll see the effects of street wars between many groups of people that have a lot in common. The violence hasn't disappeared, it simply changed forms and now moves primarily through the under-class instead of the upper-class.

My point is this: mankind is a violent and selfish beast. But, unlike you, I see these traits as positives rather than negatives. We ascended to the top of the food chain through violence (destroying all the other hominds) and have acquired the resources neccisary to construct powerful societies through violence; so they do serve us well (from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, I encourage these traits because they make us strong.

My fear is that we may lose them while some other society retains them, and then learns how to properly use them against us! We must retain these things so, if for no other reason, we may effectively fight back against those who mean us harm...

"But couldn't one equally well go back even farther and say that the Israelites forcibly conquered the area away from its original inhabitants, as recorded in the Old Testament?"

Yes (if this is historically true), although I was referring to Jewish vs Muslim conflict.

If we go back to the beginning, Muslims first spread out from Arabia and conquered many areas, including the area that is now Israel, by force. This was purely an imperialistic enterprise. That applies to "who started it" between the Muslims and the Jews in that region. The answer is simple: The Muslims started it.

But couldn't one equally well go back even farther and say that the Israelites forcibly conquered the area away from its original inhabitants, as recorded in the Old Testament?

Finding out who's responsible doesn't help us to do that; it may well be impossible, since the roots of the Israeli conflict stretch back a long, long way.

If we go back to the beginning, Muslims first spread out from Arabia and conquered many areas, including the area that is now Israel, by force. This was purely an imperialistic enterprise. That applies to "who started it" between the Muslims and the Jews in that region. The answer is simple: The Muslims started it.

Regarding the practical importance of who started it, I would say it does matter from the standpoint of international law and the prosecution of crimes. It also matters from the standpoint of understanding the conflict, and the key role of Muslim extremists' adherence to jihadist ideology in manufacturing crises specifically for the purpose of perpetuating that conflict.

It will not be possible to stop the conflict unless the jihadist ideology is defeated, and replaced by thinking that permits the use of modern (political, diplomatic) conflict resolution mechanisms.

However, in both cases, I point out, religion has likely made the violence more intense and longer-lasting. By encouraging tribalistic and xenophobic impulses and giving a handy excuse to think of one's enemies as less than human, religion amplifies whatever evil tendencies exist in human nature and often makes conflicts far worse than they might otherwise have been.

Yes. Religion, at least in this case, adds another source of social division. I have read about social psych experiments where simply dividing people into two groups based upon some arbitrary feature actually leads to all kinds of conflict between the members of groups A and B. Certain religions, or hard-line interpretations of religions, go much further to build up a whole theory of demonization of out-group members. I see this as a problem arising from ideologies (incl. political ideologies) generally, but religion in particular tends to emphasize the irrational modes of handling disputes. Certainly, the concepts of diplomacy and rationality are not well-developed in the major religions.

If it were the case that these people were to be convinced that their religious beliefs were false and there was no afterlife, that they had to make the most of the here and now, then I imagine this could well lead to a far greater incidence of civil unrest (and possibly war) than we see at the present time.

I touched on this in my recent post "No Heavens". It's true that if we take away people's religious beliefs and offer them no alternative, we can't expect the outcome to be a good one. However, I wouldn't propose that. Instead, I think any concerted deevangelism effort would have to be accompanied by a strong promotion of the benefits of humanism, as well as whatever material help and assistance these societies require to ease the pressures that fuel violence and fanaticism.

As much as I despise this overgrown beast known as religion, I must admit that it is simply a vehicle through which man's primal tendencies are expressed rather than the cause of them.

One unanswered question (and I didn't follow the original scientific article to check) is 'Was there a natural de-escalation for most participants where they (or one person initiating) got to the point where they began using excess force?' I suspect for ethical reasons they'd have to stop the experiment if things got violent, so we may not be able to find out. Nevertheless, in many natural circumstances, there would probably be a de-escalation.

Interestingly, my answer to both these comments is similar. Yes, there are de-escalation mechanisms (although as you said, Archi Medez, it'd be unethical to push this experiment to the point where they'd have to come into play), and yes, religion serves to magnify existing grievances. However, in both cases, I point out, religion has likely made the violence more intense and longer-lasting. By encouraging tribalistic and xenophobic impulses and giving a handy excuse to think of one's enemies as less than human, religion amplifies whatever evil tendencies exist in human nature and often makes conflicts far worse than they might otherwise have been.

For example, I think it matters from a moral standpoint who first resorts to violence.

From a moral standpoint, yes. From a practical standpoint, however, it doesn't matter greatly. After all, we need to stop the killing now, by whatever means necessary. Finding out who's responsible doesn't help us to do that; it may well be impossible, since the roots of the Israeli conflict stretch back a long, long way.

No matter what measures we take to limit humanity's voilent tendencies, they WILL manifest. So we may as well allow the to manifest in the open rather than letting them fester and grow strong hidden behind the facade of impartiality…

I don't think humanity has violent tendencies that are so intrinsic they can't be eliminated, and I don't agree with pessimist rhetoric like this. As bad as the world may seem at the moment, if one studies human history, there is a clear trend of improvement. In most Western cultures, we no longer settle disputes through bloodshed, duels or familial vengeance; for the most part, there is a rule of law, and it works. I see no reason why we cannot extend this state of affairs to the whole world. Violent fundamentalism may be the greatest obstacle, but we have overcome it in the past and we can continue to do so.

Of course, religion is offered as a popular excuse for violence; and it's been a useful way for authoritarians to pull their subjects together, and tell them who the enemies are; and maybe the mental habits that allow people to take silly religious myths seriously also make it harder to wonder if a particular war is really in their own best interest, or maybe just in the priests' best interests, or the kings. But it doesn't seem that religions are the only institutions that have been abused that way through history, and it definitely isn't obvious to me that godiness is directly and inevitably responsible for widespread wars, violence, bloodshed, etc. except in a few cases like the Inquisition, fatwas, and other cases that could as easily be interpreted as instances of church leaders attacking political enemies. I don't mean to be splitting hairs here, I just mean again that it's not necessarily ideas about god that are motivating any violence or hatred, it's worldly concerns of people who maintain their power by talking about god, and if we could wave our wand and make everyone stop caring about religion, the religious divisions could easily be replaced by other differences.

Alright, in the real world, religion is the institution that is best at stifling independent and rational thought, but it's not the only one. It's a great example of how not to make important decisions, and deserves plenty of criticism. But it doesn't hurt to always remember that if your goals are stopping senseless and counterproductive violence, alleviating suffering, promoting individual happiness, liberty, and wealth, and education--well, be careful using religion as a shorthand for the things that are really wrong with the world; it might be ok if we have a little "religion" left over, as long as it encourages freethought and is willing and eager to find, admit, and correct its mistakes.

And by this point, i have no idea whether what i just wrote is coherent or not:/

The answer: the other groups will have grown weak (there would be no reason to be strong because that would be the arbitor's job) and won't be able to resist the rouge social group. As regrettable as open warfare between factions is, the alternative is a Pandora's box I'd rather not open. This beast called man can't be tamed, so we might as well adapt to it's nature.

And even if (by some miricle) all conflicting societies decided to allow third-party arbitration, all of them would go out of their way to sway the arbitor towards their agendas. The methods would include (but are not limited to) bribery, blackmail, and threats directed at personal saftey. In the end, a truley impartial arbitor would be impossible because it would be propositioned at every turn, tainting it's final decision!

No matter what measures we take to limit humanity's voilent tendencies, they WILL manifest. So we may as well allow the to manifest in the open rather than letting them fester and grow strong hidden behind the facade of impartiality...