Research On Religion » Global

Matthew Moore on Buddhism, Meditating Machines, & the Robopocalypse

tonygill — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:00:05 +0000

Can robots meditate? What are the benefits and dangers of artificial intelligence (AI), whole brain emulation (WBE), and other forms of “near-future technologies” (NFTs)? Should humans proceed towards “The Singularity”? And what enlightenment can Buddhism shed on these questions? In one of our most interesting and futuristic interviews ever on this podcast, Prof. Matthew Moore, an associate professor of political science at Cal Poly – San Luis Obispo, returns our program and answers these provocative questions. It sounds like science fiction, but it is quickly becoming science fact, and Prof. Moore makes a strong case that philosophy and theology needs to be part of the conversation regarding technological advancement.

We begin the conversation with a review of “near-future technologies,” which may be near in the future, but then again they may not. Such technologies include self-replicating nanobots that can cure disease, “strong AI” (defined by having self-awareness as compared to Roombas), and WBE wherein human individuals upload their consciousness into a machine (as represented by Ray Kurzweil’s “singularity”). We review the benefits of such technology, including the ability to cure diseases, expand our knowledge, and perhaps preserve our species in the cosmos. Of course, there are downsides as well, and Tony starts to recall his time watching dystopian science fiction movies in the 1970s. The less-than-attractive elements of NFTs include our loss of control over these machines — what Prof. Moore refers to as the Robopocalypse — as well as issues of unemployment and inequality, as these technologies are likely to have disparate benefits for some humans but not others.

We turn then to what Buddhism can do to shed light on how we understand and manage NFTs, beginning with the probing question of whether robots can meditate (with the example of Robo-Tony used to illustrate). This discussion takes us down the path of what it means to be aware, as well as how we come to understand and deal with suffering. Prof. Moore talks about Nick Bostrom’s work on the topic and reveals an important deontological ethic that makes AI very different from us humans — whereas humans cannot reprogram their moral consciousness, robots can. Matt then asks three important questions from a Buddhist perspective as related to NFTs: 1) Why are we developing them?; 2) Can Buddhism help clarify what is at stake with these technologies?; and 3) What kind of relationship will we have with NFTs? The first question prompts a discussion of how Buddhist deal with suffering. Whereas most philosophies argue that one must either accept suffering or try to change the world in which it occurs, Buddhism provides a third option wherein one changes one’s mind as to the role of suffering. We talk about how NFTs can reduce certain types of suffering — such as diseases that have potential cures — but there other forms of suffering offer more difficult possibilities, such as “can we suffer by not knowing something that is knowable”? This helps inform the answers to the other questions that are posed. Fearing the downsides of a Robopocalypse, can humans be willing to endure the suffering of not realizing the upsides of NFTs left undeveloped? Matt covers a number of policy responses to NFTs that all of this thought provides: 1) We embrace NFTs and hope everything works out; 2) We emphasize the good aspects of NFTs and try to avoid the bad; or 3) We do not develop them even though they are within the realm of our technological possibility. Prof. Moore leaves off with some of his thoughts as to what he thinks we should do. Recorded: May 19, 2017.

RELATED LINKS

Prof. Matthew Moore’s bio at the Department of Political Science at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.

Buddhism and Political Theory, by Prof. Matthew Moore.

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, by Nick Bostrom (mentioned in podcast).

Isaac Asimov’s Laws of Robotics (mentioned in podcast).

RELATED PODCASTS

Matthew Moore on Buddhism and Political Theory.

Nancy Ellen Abrams on Spirituality & Science.

Stephen Barr on Quantum Physics, Religion, & the God Particle.

Rob Moll on Religion and the Brain.

Jason Klocek on Religious Conflict and Repression

tonygill — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 08:00:35 +0000

Why do political leaders repress religious groups and how might their actions be related to instances of religious conflict within society? Jason Klocek, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California – Berkeley, examines this relationship and reports on findings that he and his co-author, Peter Henne (University of Vermont), discovered in a forthcoming article in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. After talking about his wild experiences in Turkmenistan, Jason details the state of the scholarly literature when it comes to understanding the repression of religious organizations. He notes that much of the previous scholarship has argued that religious repression prompts religiously-motivated violence, but that a new set of scholars are also observing a reverse causality wherein religious unrest in a society motivates state leaders to crack down on religious groups, including ones not directly involved in any conflict. While acknowledging the endogeneity of such a relationship — wherein conflict motivates repression and vice versa — he and Prof. Henne find statistical evidence that the appearance of religious unrest in a society is often what provokes a variety of tighter restrictions on religious groups and activity. Using data from Jonathan Fox’s Religion & State Dataset, they test their hypotheses that pick up on some of the research done by William Cavanaugh. That latter scholarship emphasizes that state rulers often rely upon a “myth of religious violence” often dating back deep in history to justify crackdown on groups they see challenging their authority or ruling position. Jason provides a couple illustrative examples of where this has happened recently, including in Russia (with respect to unrest in Chechnya) and China (referencing the uprising of Uighurs in the western portion of the country). Tony notes a few other cases such as how Padre Hidalgo in Mexico and the Taiping Rebellion in China are often viewed as instances of religious mobilization that could cause worry to incumbent leaders. Jason then provides us a summary of his dissertation research wherein he attempts to understand why religious conflicts are so much more difficult to resolve than non-religious ones. Whereas past scholars (including Jason’s mentor and frequent RoR guest Prof. Ron Hassner) have emphasized the religious side of the conflict coin, Jason notes that secular rulers also form intransigent images of religious groups and leaders that cause problems when it comes to negotiating settlements. He illustrates this with the case of British counterinsurgency in Cyprus during the 1940s and ’50s and reveals some interesting empirical findings he discovered in dusty archives. We finish with Jason’s reflections on what he has learned over the course of his studies. Recorded: March 24, 2017.

Peter Henne’s bio at the University of Vermont, Department of Political Science (Prof. Henne is Jason’s co-author on the article discussed here).

The Myth of Religious Violence, by William Cavanaugh (mentioned in podcast).

Journal of Conflict Resolution (institutional access required).

Jonathan Fox’s Religion & State Dataset at The ARDA.

RELATED PODCASTS

Matthew Isaacs on Religion and Ethnic Rebellion.

Ani Sarkissian on Religious Liberty in the Post-Soviet World.

Monica Toft on Religion, Terrorism, and Civil War.

Religious Liberty and Violent Religious Extremism: A Panel Discussion.

Ron Hassner on Religion on the Battlefield.

Ron Hassner on Sacred Spaces and Holy Conflict.

Ann Wainscott on the Politics of Islam in Morocco.

Davis Brown on Religion, Initiating War, and Data

tonygill — Sun, 26 Mar 2017 08:00:48 +0000

Does the religious composition of a nation and its leaders have an impact on whether a country will initiate a war? Prof. Davis Brown, a research fellow at Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion and visiting assistant professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, uses new data to show that the answer is yes. The political science sub-field of international relations (IR) has long ignored religion as a factor explaining the occurrence of recent wars. Prof. Brown reviews why this might be the case, and also takes us on a brief tour of the different schools of thought that operate within IR, including realism and constructivism. We then talk about the construction of a brand new data set that categorizes different countries at different times according to the government’s religious preference. Davis was (and still is) instrumental in building this data set that initially examines governments on five dimensions: official favoritism of/hostility towards religion; support for religious education; financial support to religious institutions; regulatory burdens on religious groups; and the free exercise of religion. We discuss what a massive undertaking this data collection and coding is, and why such efforts should be appreciated to the social sciences writ large. Davis admits to not listening to Led Zeppelin while doing this work (though Tony would have the volume cranked up). Prof. Brown then reveals the results of a series of logistic regressions he conducted and published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. He finds that since 1946, the more Christian a nation is, the less likely it is to initiate an international conflict. Islam, on the other hand, shows the opposite trend, with more Islamic nations being more likely to start a war. No effect was found on countries that have a Buddhist influence. We discuss Davis’s ideas about a “religious war ethic” and how this would filter its way into foreign policy decisions. He talks about just war ethics versus pacifism and notes the importance of doing case study research to find the specific causal links, though case study work is inherently difficult where much of the effect religious ethics may play is subconscious. He offers up some possibilities related to Anwar Sadat in the 1970s and George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. We finish with some of the interesting revelations Prof. Brown experienced throughout the course of his studies and data coding, including his greater understanding of Islam and the discovery of a Buddhist war ethic. Recorded: March 11, 2017.

“The Influence of Religion on Interstate Armed Conflict,” by Davis Brown at the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (may need subscription)

The Sword, The Cross, and the Eagle: The American Christian Just War Tradition, by Davis Brown.

Religious Characteristics of States data set at The Association for Religious Data Archives (The ARDA).

Government Religious Preferences data set (coming soon).

The Revenge of God: The Resurgence of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in the Modern World, by Gilles Kepel (mentioned in interview).

RELATED PODCASTS

Davis Brown on Just War Theory.

Monica Toft on Religion, Terrorism, and Civil War.

Ron Mock on Pacifism, War, and Terrorism.

Religious Liberty and Violent Extremism: A Panel Discussion.

Ron Hassner on Religion on the Battlefield.

Thomas Farr on Religion, Religious Liberty, and Foreign Policy.

Is Religious Freedom Good for Growth? A Panel Discussion

tonygill — Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:00:40 +0000

Can religious freedom promote economic growth in the long- and/or short-term? This was the general question posed to a number of scholars on November 15, 2016 at a symposium entitled “Religious Freedom and the Common Good” hosted by the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs (Georgetown University). Wow! That’s a mouthful! Brian Grim (Religious Freedom & Business Foundation) moderates a conversation with Ilan Alon (University of Agder), Timur Kuran (Duke University), Rachel McCleary (Harvard University and Hoover Institution), and your own lovable host Anthony Gill (University of Washington). The discussion that develops is broad-ranging, covering countries as far-flung as Guatemala and China, and eras from the Ottoman Empire to contemporary Russia. Anthony Gill asserts that religious liberty is good for long-term economic growth, citing an example from the Netherlands in the 17th century, but also cautions that efforts to impose religious freedom from the top-down can cause conflict in the short-run, and that a strong culture of tolerance is needed for religious freedom and economic freedom to work conjointly. Timur Kuran shares these views noting that many skilled entrepreneurs leave places such as Pakistan in the search for more spiritually free environments and this harms their growth potential (while benefiting those countries where migrants move t0). At various points throughout the conversation he uses examples from the Ottoman Empire and contemporary Turkey to show how laws on religious behavior and towards religious minorities can have important economic impacts. Rachel McCleary offers a competing view noting an important difference between “believing” and “belonging.” Whereas certain religious beliefs may be conducive to economic growth, she notes that religious institutions either have no or a negative effect on economic growth and reducing political corruption. She cites her extensive research in Guatemala to support this claim. Ilan Alon sees both positive and negative effects on economic growth created by religious freedom and brings his experience in China and Norway to bear on this topic. Brian Grim peppers the discussion with a number of his own observations how particular companies such as the Kellogg Corporation have promoted religious freedom at various points in time. It is also noted that the Quakers were great at making chocolate and founded Cadbury. Near the end of the panel discussion, Anthony Gill makes a controversial point that bourbon is better than scotch as the participants field a number of questions from audience members. Recorded: November 15, 2016.

RELATED LINKS

Video presentation of the panel at the Religious Freedom Project (Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs).

Religious Freedom and the Common Good Symposium webpage.

Coming soon: Religious Freedom Institute. (The same project, but now in institutional form!)

Brian Grim’s bio at the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation.

Ilan Alon’s bio at the University of Agder.

Timur Kuran’s bio at Duke University.

Rachel McCleary’s bio at the Hoover Institution.

Anthony Gill’s bio at the University of Washington.

Explanation of bourbon vs scotch and definitive proof of which one is better.

RELATED PODCASTS

Religious Liberty & Economic Prosperity: A Panel Discussion.

Proselytism, Social Stability, and Development: A Panel Discussion.

Religious Freedom & Political Flourishing: A Panel Discussion.

Proselytism, Humanitarianism, and Development: A Panel Discussion.

Brian Grim on Religious Freedom & Business.

Timur Kuran on Islamic Law and Economic Development.

Timur Kuran on Islamic Economics.

Rebecca Shah on Religion and the Enterprising Poor in India.

Allen Hertzke on Religious Liberty.

Carrie Miles on Religion, Gender, and Missionaries.

Timothy Shah on the Case for Religious Liberty.

Paul Froese on the Meaning of Life

tonygill — Sun, 25 Sep 2016 08:00:07 +0000

Have you ever stopped to think about what your purpose in life is? Or do you wonder if life has any meaning? Prof. Paul Froese, professor of sociology at Baylor University and resident scholar at Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion, has thought about these questions, but more importantly he has thought about how other people think about this question. Prof. Froese takes us on a journey beginning with how he started to think about thinking about the purpose in life, which also engages us in a conversation about the book design and how to write in an accessible voice. Paul notes that while this is not a “self-help” book per se, it is designed to get people to be more reflective on how the think about their purpose. We talk a bit about some basic definitions including “meaning” and “purpose,” which also is placed against their antitheses of “meaninglessness” and “nihilism,” and some of the demographics of “meaningfulness” are revealed. References to Russian literature and punk rock bands are scattered throughout this discussion. The bulk of the interview walks us through several key questions that Prof. Froese set out to answer including: Does having purpose make you happy?; Who lacks purpose?; Is purpose within you or is it socially given?; What is the relation to purpose and T(t)ruth (both capital and lowercase “t”)?; And how does time, both our own personal aging and the cultural tempos of larger society, affect how our thoughts on purpose can change? Tony reflects upon some of his life events and growing up in different cultural eras, which Paul notes seem to be changing ever more rapidly nowadays. We finish with Paul’s reflections on what he learned over the process of his academic career dating back to his undergraduate days studying Russian literature and history, and how all of his experiences along the way have filtered into this book. Recorded: September 16, 2016.

RELATED LINKS

Prof. Paul Froese’s bio at Baylor’s ISR and Baylor’s Department of Sociology.

On Purpose: How We Create the Meaning of Life, by Paul Froese.

America’s Four Gods: What We Say about God and What that Says about Us, by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader.

The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization, by Paul Froese.

RELATED PODCASTS

Paul Froese on America’s Four Gods.

Daniel Russell on Ideals and Virtues.

Joseph O. Baker on American Secularism.

Wafa Hakim Orman on Religion and Economic Crises.

Michael Rota on Pascal’s Wager.

Matthew Moore on Buddhism and Political Theory.

Andre Molle on Spirituality and Martial Arts.

Daniel Philpott on Defending Religious Freedom

tonygill — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 09:00:29 +0000

While the promotion of religious liberty sounds relatively innocuous, there have been growing voices standing against such a foreign policy as practiced by the United States, Canada, and some Western European nations. Prof. Daniel Philpott, professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, examines the basis for a number of these critiques and responds to them, arguing that religious liberty is a universal human right that should be protected and promoted both by official policy and private initiative.

We start with a short discussion about Dan’s collegial blog (with other scholars) entitled Arc of the Universe. After informing Tony that it is not about astronomy, he explains how the title originated from one of Martin Luther King’s sayings with respect to justice and what the bloggers write about over at that website. Many of the issues we address today can be found written at Arc of the Universe. Dan then briefly surveys how the issue of religious liberty became a topic of concern for US and Western European foreign policy, dating back to the 1999 International Religious Freedom Act, and what that policy is intended to do.

We then examine the basic thrust of recent academic criticism aimed at the promotion of religious liberty abroad. These critics — who Dan calls The New Critics — emphasize the point that religious freedom is not a universal value and that it is being imposed by the West on cultures that it is not well-suited. They also see the religious liberty foreign policy as a product of Western power emanating from the colonial and imperialist eras and that this comes with pernicious effects. Dan then counters the main gist of this argument by arguing that religious liberty is a universal right and points out that it is enshrined in a number of international documents signed by a wide variety of countries, including a majority of Islamic nations. Dan further asserts that the notion of religious liberty has roots deeper in history than the age of European colonialism, and that it in fact it stretches back to early Christianity. He makes two additional points that the concept of religious liberty is not necessarily Western and cites evidence supporting such freedoms in the Koran, and then points out that rights of conscience have popular support throughout the world broadly.

Another aspect of the New Critics argument that we address is the definition of religion, wherein the critique of religious freedom policy is viewed as imposing a certain image — namely Protestant or, more broadly, Christian — of what proper religion is. Dan takes on this argument by noting that there are some very common sense ideas about what religion is irrespective of the type or intensity of ritualistic behavior. Tony asks is rights of conscience makes this point moot by allowing individuals, rather than groups, define what they consider to be religion and Dan responds. We also note the interesting tendency of the New Critics to approach their criticisms of religious freedom not from an atheistic point of view, but one that is skeptical of secularism and the origin of that concept in the European Enlightenment. Our conversation then turns to whether the promotion of religious liberty conflicts with other liberties and how all of this can be balanced. Dan notes that religious liberty is not an absolute right and that in the United States religious groups are not allowed to practice polygamy or child sacrifice. He also makes the case about how the same arguments of the New Critics would be made if the topic was torture. With different concepts of the validity of torture in different cultures, one could easily slide down the path of moral relativism and we discuss this. Dan also discusses how moral relativism does not flow from empirical diversity.

We finish the podcast by discussing the effectiveness of top-down foreign policy efforts to promote religious freedom. Both Tony and Dan agree that those efforts have been less than effective and that sending around an ambassador to lecture other nations’ politicians about the virtue of liberty will not have much of an impact on the ground. We chat about different ways in which religious liberty might be promoted, including at the grass roots by NGOs and common folks who realize they need to live with, and tolerate, their neighbors of other faiths. We bring up the research of Rebecca Shah in showing how this has played out in the poor barrios of India despite the influence of Hindu nationalism. Our discussion ends with some of Dan’s thoughts on how scholars might be shaping the agenda on religious liberty. Recorded: October 29, 2015.

Arc of the Universe blog.

Just and Unjust Peace: An Ethic of Political Conciliation, by Daniel Philpott.

The Politics of Past Evil, edited by Daniel Philpott.

God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics, by Monica Duffy Toft, Daniel Philpott, and Timothy Shah.

Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations, by Daniel Philpott.

Center for Civil & Human Rights at the University of Notre Dame.

RELATED PODCASTS

Daniel Philpott on Religious Resurgence and Democratization.

Religious Freedom and Political Flourishing: A Panel Discussion.

Religious Liberty and Economic Prosperity: A Panel Discussion.

Proselytism, Humanitarianism, and Development: A Panel Discussion.

Robert P. George on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Tom Farr on Religion, Religious Liberty, and US Foreign Policy.

David Smith on Religion, International Relations, and Foreign Policy.

Timothy Shah on the Case for Religious Liberty.

Monica Toft on Religion, Terrorism, and Civil War.

Rebecca Shah on Religion and the Enterprising Poor in India.

Ani Sarkissian and Religious Liberty in the Post-Soviet World.

William Inboden on Religious Liberty, Foreign Policy, & the Arab Spring.

Brian Grim on Religious Freedom and Business.

Ron Hassner on Religion in the Military

tonygill — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 08:00:01 +0000

From issues as diverse as pacifism to rituals that require special garments that interfere with uniforms, militaries around the world often find themselves trying to accommodate the various religious beliefs and practices of their soldiers. How such issues are manage has largely gone unstudied by academics. However, Dr. Ron Hassner — associate professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley — has taken up the task to research this topic by assembling a group of scholars for an edited volume entitled Religion in the Military Worldwide. We discuss the specific findings presented in this work and Prof. Hassner’s general thoughts on the management of religion in the armed forces.

Our discussion begins, though, with a summary of Prof. Hassner’s previous work on “sacred space,” a topic that we have visited before on the podcast. In this line of research, Ron has argued that territory that is deemed sacred to religious adherents faces a problem of being “indivisible,” unlike land or loot, and makes many conflicts very intractable. Ron argues that the failure to understand the importance of “sacred space” has led to numerous diplomatic misunderstandings and policy errors, but he also presents ways to mitigate conflict, which includes involving clergy into policy discussions. We also raise the issue of the “sacred” Big Game between Stanford and Cal, and the iconographic ax that is awarded to the winner, and Ron presents us with a little known, but perhaps very revealing, correlative fact about that ongoing rivalry that involves him.

We revisited this earlier line of Ron’s research agenda because it provided him with a segue into his current interest in understanding how religion functions within militaries and how different countries manage potential conflicts between religious belief and ritual, and the necessary dictates of preparing for, and conducting, combat. And it was not just his previous research that prompted such an interest; Ron’s own experience of having to prepare plates and kitchen utensils for kosher meals led him to think about this topic. He also recounts second-hand stories wherein a Hindu soldier was reported to have risked his life on the battlefield to tend to a cow that was harmed by artillery fire. These and a few other stories helped to pique Ron’s interest into investigating whether or not there are any interesting empirical regularities around the world as to the management of religion in the military. Finding virtually no pre-existing literature on the topic, he decided to assemble a group of scholars who had some connection to the topic and he discusses how this came together in the edited volume noted above.

We then dive into the topic of religious demographics in the military, which one might think would be a relatively straightforward task for empirical research. However, many militaries, including the United States, do not keep and/or share religious demographics. Ron explains how some scholars have tried to get around this lack of data with unique collection strategies, including counting beards, the number and denomination of chaplains, and yarmulkes. Issues of mandatory conscription versus an all-volunteer force can have an interesting impact on the religious demographics. Ron further asked his scholars to probe the issue of the denominational composition of smaller units within the military. This leads to an interesting discussion on socialization and how even members of a platoon who do not initially share the religious beliefs and practices of the majority of the group will often conform to those preferences over time as an act of cohesion. Ron shares a few interesting stories to this effect.

We then talk about the manner in which military commanders have to accommodate very specific religious practices that might conflict with standard operating procedures with a large bureaucracy. Tony brings up the issue of Sikhs and protective helmets, given that the Sikh practice of long hair and turbans make it difficult to outfit soldiers with this basic piece of safety gear. Prof. Hassner then brings up the fascinating case of Japan, a nation that many people consider to be amongst the most secular in the world. Ron notes that although religion is significantly downplayed in the Japanese defense forces, a very large number of soldiers (including officers) will not drive vehicles or board ships that have not been blessed by Shinto clergy in a purification ritual to rid the object of evil spirits.

Our next topic is to look into the U.S. case and how religion is managed therein. Here Ron talks about how he had two different scholars with differing viewpoints — Martin Cook and Pauletta Otis — regarding the presence in the U.S. armed forces. The former shows a great deal of concern over the excesses of religious symbolism in military music and symbols/badges used on the battlefield. He sees these excesses as conflicting with general military goals of trying to win hearts and minds of populations in foreign lands, particularly in recent military campaigns in the Middle East. Otis, on the other hand, notes that while excesses do exist, there are procedures for addressing these problems and the system works fairly well, which leads her the con. We also chat a bit about how religious belief and practice play out in daily operations, including combat. This is the main topic of Ron’s next book but he gives us a flavor for some of his findings, as well as what some of the authors in his edited volume had to say. It is hear where we look both at the Iranian military and India’s armed forces. We discuss how there was an interesting selection bias in the Iranian military during the Iran-Iraq War that led many devout Muslims to join special units that engaged in suicide attacks out of a firm belief in martyrdom. We explore India’s experience in trying to integrate people of very different faith traditions that are often in conflict with one another into the same units. Interestingly, Ron notes that rather than creating religiously homogenous units that might be prone to mutiny if ordered to fight against co-religionists, combining individuals of different faiths actually helps to build unit cohesion as all the soldiers know they are dependent upon one another for survival on the battlefield irrespective of spiritual preferences.

We finish our interview with some of Ron’s reflections on what he has learned throughout the years of studying this topic. One of his main takeaways was that there really are no pat solutions to dealing with the issue of religion in the armed forces, but rather leaders are often learning and adjusting to changing circumstances. Recorded: October 7, 2015.

Religion in the Military Worldwide, edited by Ron Hassner.

War on Sacred Ground, by Ron Hassner.

RELATED PODCASTS

Ron Hassner on Sacred Space and Holy Conflict.

Philip Jenkins on Religion and World War I.

Robert Kinnune on Military Chaplains.

Sean Scott on Religious Rhetoric in the US Civil War.

James Felak on Pope Pius XII, the Wartime Pontiff.

Davis Brown on Just War Theory

tonygill — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:00:07 +0000

What is just war theory and how can it relate to tort law? What is the doctrine of proportionality? And how do all these concepts apply to various conflicts including the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, Russia’s involvement its surrounding nations, and the Pig War of 1859? Dr. Davis Brown, an assistant professor of political science at Maryville University, answers these questions and more as he takes us on a tour of the just war doctrine from its inception with the Early Church Fathers to its application in some recent conflicts. As a trained lawyer with experience in the US Air Force, Davis provides a unique perspective on a topic that has occupied the minds of some of history’s greatest religious thinkers.

We begin the interview with some background on Prof. Brown himself. He explains what he did as a judge advocate general (JAG) in the military, noting that it really wasn’t all flying in outer space and trying to apprehend bad guys like on television. Instead, he explains how various military actions are run past military lawyers to ensure they correspond with international and domestic US law. Davis then details his reasons for moving into the world of academia.

Following this brief biographical discussion, we move into the origins of just war theory. Prof. Brown notes that while Jesus did have things to say about conflict, it was Paul who begins the discussion of how political entities should conduct themselves with respect to their citizenry and other nations. He then jumps forward to the role that Augustine of Hippo played in formulating the doctrine of just war. Where the intellectual advance in these ideas next occurs is with Thomas Aquinas, who lays out three basic principles for a war to be just: 1) proper authority; 2) just cause; and 3) right intent. Davis discusses the dimensions of these three components with some reference to our contemporary world wherein some wars are being waged by “stateless entities” making it difficult to determine “proper authority.” He then takes us to the early 17th century and the thinking of Francisco Suarez, a Spanish Jesuit who tweaks Aquinas’s second feature of just war (just cause) and introduces the concept of proportionality. Suarez also advances the concept of “right intent” to talk about “right manner,” the means in which a conflict is conducted. Tony learns about a few Latin terms and their meaning, most notably jus ad bellum and jus in bellum. Davis also outlines some of the other advances in just war theory at this time, including the introduction of “reasonable prospect of success” and “means of last resort.” We discuss some of the historical context of this thinking and note that the interest in just war theory diminishes during the era of absolutist monarchies (17th through the 19th century), to be revived again following World War I.

Davis then adds his own intellectual take on just war theory by expounding upon tort law. He explains what tort law is and how it is applicable to international law and the specific topic of warfare. There exist four key elements that must be satisfied for a tort claim to have solid standing: 1) duty to another; 2) breach of contract; 3) causation; and 4) existence of damages. Davis shows how each of these works first with reference to ye olde “rat in the soup” problem that might lead to a tort claim in a restaurant, and then with respect to the decision of going to war. We talk a bit about enforcement at this point and what role the United Nations has played (or not played) with respect to arbitrating just war decisions. Tony then presents Davis with a number of recent conflicts and asks him to evaluate each in light of his understanding of the just war doctrine (and in the framework of tort law). We review the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Russian incursions into Georgia and Ukraine, and the 1978 invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam. To top it all off, Tony mentions the Pig War of 1859 involving a dispute over the San Juan Islands and surrounding waterways in the Pacific Northwest. He lays out this little-known conflict between the US and Great Britain and Davis then notes that this might be the first empirical case of “invincible ignorance” within just war theory he has encountered, and he explains what that all means. We finish up with some reflections on what Prof. Brown has learned over the course of his career as a JAG and an academic specifically studying religion and conflict. Recorded: August 6, 2015.

RELATED LINKS

Prof. Davis Brown’s profile at Maryville University.

The Sword, the Cross, and the Eagle: The American Just War Tradition, by Davis Brown.

The Just War Tradition: Applying Old Ethics to New Problems, edited by Davis Brown and Henrik Syse.

Religious Characteristics of States Data Set, compiled by Davis Brown.

The Association of Religious Data Archives.

Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, by Michael Walzer (mentioned on podcast).

War and the Christian Conscience, by Paul Ramsey and John Hallowell (mentioned on podcast).

RELATED PODCASTS

Ron Mock on Pacifism, War, and Terrorism.

Sean Scott on Religious Rhetoric and the US Civil War.

Should Christians Have Fought in the American War for Independence?

Andre Molle on Spirituality and the Martial Arts.

Thomas Farr on Religion, Religious Liberty, and U.S. Foreign Policy.

William Inboden on Religious Liberty, Foreign Policy, & the Arab Spring.

John Owen IV on Confronting Political Islam.

Proselytism, Humanitarianism, and Development: A Panel Discussion

tonygill — Sun, 24 May 2015 08:00:56 +0000

Proselytism is as old as religion itself. Nearly all spiritual faiths seek to expand the number of adherents that they have via communicating with people not within their faith tradition. But to what extent is proselytism a “bad thing” for society, perhaps as a form of cultural imperialism? How has religious proselytism impacted socio-economic development over time? How do humanitarian acts factor into proselytism and economic development? Thomas Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project (part of Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs), leads a conversation among a diverse set of scholars including Robert Woodberry, Michael Barnett, and Rebecca Shah (heard in that order). This is one of several panels presented by the Religious Freedom Project on the topic of proselytism, including one on proselytism and social stability (see below). Recorded: March 4, 2015.

Thomas Farr’s bio at the Religious Freedom Project.

Michael Barnett’s bio at George Washington University.

Rebecca Shah’s bio at the Religious Freedom Project.

Robert Woodberry’s bio at the Religious Freedom Project.

Cornerstone, the official blog of the Religious Freedom Project.

RELATED PODCASTS

Proselytism, Social Stability, and Development: A Panel Discussion.

Religious Liberty & Economic Prosperity: A Panel Discussion.

Religious Liberty & Political Flourishing: A Panel Discussion.

Rebecca Shah on Religion and the Enterprising Poor in India.

Thomas Farr on Religion, Religious Liberty, and US Diplomacy.

Robert Woodberry on Missionaries and Democracy.

Timothy Shah on the Case for Religious Freedom.

Denis Dragovic on Religion & State-Building

tonygill — Sun, 10 May 2015 08:00:44 +0000

Do religious organizations play any role in helping to rebuild failed states? Prof. Denis Dragovic, an honorary fellow at the University of Melbourne, joins us from Australia to discuss his new book Religion and Post-Conflict Statebuilding: Roman Catholic and Sunni Islamic Perspectives. Prof. Dragovic not only is a scholar of this topic, but he is also a practitioner who has had extensive experience in the field working with a variety of faith-based groups in some of the most politically troubled spots in the world. He begins the interview by telling us how he had to rescue one of his aid workers that had been kidnapped in Iraq, a harrowing tale indeed!

Our discussion on the issue of state-building begins with a little political science discussion, helping to define the terms of “failed state” and “state-building.” Denis notes that there are three critical areas that must be tended to when creating a functioning state that can help coordinate a society: 1) legitimacy; 2) security; and 3) basic needs (e.g., food, shelter). Without any of these three elements, individuals in a society live in a rather precarious situation. Denis peppers his discussion with some examples from the Middle East, Africa, and the Balkans. We then discuss what role religious organizations can play and why so many policymakers have overlooked the important organizational role faith groups play in society. Religious groups are essential components of civil society that usually remain well-organized even when a secular governing system is collapsing, plus they provide a great deal of knowledge about local conditions and network well with residents in villages and towns.

We then move on to how religious groups assist in building (or rebuilding) the three elements of a functioning state. We start with legitimacy and Denis dissects this concept further by noting that there are three components to legitimacy: 1) legal validity of the state; 2) justification of power that transcends generations; and 3) the expression of citizen consent. He explains how religious groups can lend support to political leaders linking their legitimacy to the citizenry, and how rulers also use religious symbolism to connect with their population. He illustrates this with an interesting tale from Croatia following the civil war it experienced following the collapse of Yugoslavia. Security is the next issue we take up, and this is a surprising one given that religious groups generally do not control police or military force. Nonetheless, faith-based entities provide the ability to adjudicate disputes, enhance social capital (such as trust within society), and promote civic norms and values that help bring peace to a society. The role of sermons by religious leaders plays a large role here. Finally, we discuss the area of basic needs, which is what most people think about when talking about the role of religious groups in troubled areas. Here we cover the dimensions of international aid and domestic assistance, noting how religious organizations know a great deal about the local needs of different communities and are great conduits for solving problems.

We then discuss the role that different faith traditions play in state-building, including what it is like to work ecumenically across theologies. This takes us into a brief discussion of the different conceptualizations that Catholics and Sunni Muslims have with respect to the role of the state and governance. Our attention then turns to an interesting situation in the Middle East, which is the rise of the Islamic State and where this emerging group fits into the topic of state-building. We finish with some of Prof. Dragovic’s thoughts about what he has learned over the course of his scholarship and many years working in the field. Recorded: April 22, 2015.

Prof. Denis Dragovic’s bio at the Conversation.

Religion and Post-Conflict Statebuilding: Roman Catholic and Sunni Islamic Perspectives, by Denis Dragovic.

RELATED PODCASTS

John Rees on International Development and Faith-Based Organizations.

David Smith on Religion, International Relations, and Foreign Policy.

Torrey Olsen on Faith-Based Humanitarianism and World Vision.

Daniel Philpott on Religious Resurgence and Democratization.

Ani Sarkissian on Religion & Civil Society in Turkey.

Monica Toft on Religion, Terrorism, and Civil War.

Thomas Farr on Religion, Religious Liberty, and US Diplomacy.

William Inboden on Religious Liberty, Foreign Policy, and the Arab Spring.

Religious Freedom & Economic Prosperity: A Panel Discussion.

Religious Freedom & Political Flourishing: A Panel Discussion.

John Owen IV on Confronting Political Islam, Historical Lessons.