Does Religion Cause Violence
Does religion cause violence by William Cavanaugh?
In this essay, I will explain how William Cavanaugh uses the operations of knowing to explain why many theorists continue to wrongly assume that religion is especially prone to cause violence.
First of all, one must have an experience of data. The raw materials of data that Cavanaugh uses is the thoughts and feelings of the people that identify themselves as religious; that challenge conventional wisdom. He also expresses his own personal thoughts when it comes to conventional wisdom, challenged the “right” way. This information is indicated on page 6.
Then, one must ask questions for understanding. In this case, Cavanaugh indirectly asks himself: Why is the situation the way it is? What’s going on? Why are the arguments used by authors incoherent? In my opinion, he indirectly does so when he states that the English-speaking academic world has been inundated by books and articles attempting to explain why religion has a peculiar tendency toward violence and that they all have in common an inability to find a convincing way to separate religious violence from secular violence. This is indicated on page 7. Following this, one must have a direct insight. A direct insight is the grasp of links or connections between the elements of data. Cavanaugh’s direct insight is when he discovers a pattern after analyzing authors’ theories on whether or not religion causes violence. He discovers that people have a tendency to treat all sorts of things as absolutes. He concludes this insight by saying that applying an empirical test to the question of absolutism is more practical than general theories about the violence of religion. This is indicated on page 12. Finally, to complete the operation of understanding, one must fully understand using the expression of a direct or inverse insight by formulae. Basically in this step, the author concludes what he has understood. He states that the point is that the
In this essay, I will explain how William Cavanaugh uses the operations of knowing to explain why many theorists continue to wrongly assume that religion is especially prone to cause violence.
First of all, one must have an experience of data. The raw materials of data that Cavanaugh uses is the thoughts and feelings of the people that identify themselves as religious; that challenge conventional wisdom. He also expresses his own personal thoughts when it comes to conventional wisdom, challenged the “right” way. This information is indicated on page 6.
Then, one must ask questions for understanding. In this case, Cavanaugh indirectly asks himself: Why is the situation the way it is? What’s going on? Why are the arguments used by authors incoherent? In my opinion, he indirectly does so when he states that the English-speaking academic world has been inundated by books and articles attempting to explain why religion has a peculiar tendency toward violence and that they all have in common an inability to find a convincing way to separate religious violence from secular violence. This is indicated on page 7. Following this, one must have a direct insight. A direct insight is the grasp of links or connections between the elements of data. Cavanaugh’s direct insight is when he discovers a pattern after analyzing authors’ theories on whether or not religion causes violence. He discovers that people have a tendency to treat all sorts of things as absolutes. He concludes this insight by saying that applying an empirical test to the question of absolutism is more practical than general theories about the violence of religion. This is indicated on page 12. Finally, to complete the operation of understanding, one must fully understand using the expression of a direct or inverse insight by formulae. Basically in this step, the author concludes what he has understood. He states that the point is that the