Aren't Religions the Cause of Wars?
This is a common objection to religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Critics argue that religion is inherently divisive and violent, claiming it has caused more wars and bloodshed than any other human endeavor. At first glance, this accusation seems plausible - history has its share of conflicts involving religious factions. But when we look beyond slogans and headlines and into historical data and philosophical foundations, a very different picture emerges.
Historical Evidence - The Numbers Tell a Different Story
A foundational resource on this subject is The Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod. In their comprehensive study of war they recorded 1763 wars from 3500 BC. up to the year 2004 AD; of which 122 of those were found to be motivated primarily by religion. That's less than 7% of all wars throughout recorded history. Even more telling, two-thirds of those religious wars were fought in the name of Islam.
That leaves over 93% of all wars motivated by political, territorial, ethnic or ideological reasons. Think about the major wars of the 20th century - World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Rwandan Genocide - none were religious conflicts.
It's also worth highlighting that atheistic regimes (and not religion) have been responsible for the most catastrophic mass killings in human history. Joseph Stalin, leading an explicitly atheistic Soviet Union, is estimated to have caused the deaths of up to 60 million people through purges, famines, and gulags. Mao Zedong's communist regime in China is responsible for an estimated 40 million deaths. Vladimir Lenin, another atheist revolutionary, was responsible for around 5 million deaths during the Russian Civil War and the Red Terror.
So if we're going to measure a worldview by the body count of its adherents, atheism fares far worse than religion. While that alone isn't enough to disprove atheism, it certainly undercuts the argument that religion is uniquely violent.
Misusing Religion vs. Religion Itself
It's important to make a distinction between people misusing religion and the actual teachings of religion. Christianity, at its core, teaches love for one's neighbor, turning the other cheek, and peace with all people as far as it depends on you (Rom 12:18). Yes, there have been some wars started in the name of Christianity - but not because Christ told them to or taught them to; but rather out of a desire for power.
If someone commits violence in the name of Christianity, they are acting against the teachings of Christ, not in accordance with them.
Jesus rebuked violence clearly. When Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus said, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Mat 26:52). That's not the rallying cry of a warlord; it's the wisdom of a peacemaker.
Atheism, Moral Relativism, and the Capacity for Evil
One of the dangerous implications of atheism, as a worldview, is its rejection of objective moral values. If there is no God - no transcendent source of right and wrong - then morality becomes subjective and relative. What is right for one person may be wrong for another, with no higher authority to adjudicate between them.
This is called moral relativism - the belief that morality is not objective, but is based on personal or cultural preferences. If no action is objectively wrong, then anything becomes justifiable given the right circumstances.
In atheism, there is no fear of divine accountability. This doesn't mean all atheists are immoral - many live ethical lives. But the worldview itself lacks a foundation for binding moral obligations. Under atheism, the conscience is just a byproduct of evolution, a social instinct, not a moral compass rooted in eternal truth. The problem is, if humans are just highly evolved animals and morality is flexible, why shouldn't the strong dominate the weak? By that logic, why is it wrong for a government to purge its enemies if it strengthens the state? Stalin and Mao weren't mad men; they were logical in a system that valued power over principle and denied God altogether.
As Dostoevsky famously wrote: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”
Conscience and the Moral Law Within
Yet here is the conundrum - we all live as though some things are really, objectively wrong. For example the torturing of children, genocide, racism, etc. Deep down, we just seem to know that some acts are truly evil, regardless of public opinion or laws. This sense of conscience - a moral compass we carry inside us - points to a higher source of morality.
The Bible teaches that the moral law is written on our hearts (Rom 2:15). Even people who have never read Scripture still have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. This points to a Moral Lawgiver — a personal, righteous God who created us in His image.
Can we perhaps be moral without God? This is another form of the objection. Many say, "I don't need religion to be moral." And to an extent, that's true -a person can live a relatively moral life without believing in God. But the deeper question is, can morality itself exist without God? If God does not exist, are good and evil real things, or just preferences? Without God, moral laws become social contracts or evolutionary instincts - they might help survival, but they carry no obligation. Why should I follow the herd's morality if it doesn't benefit me? And who says the herd is right?
Christianity offers a solid foundation - a personal, holy God who created humans with value, gave us free will, and expects us to love others as He has loved us.
That framework gives us not only a reason to be moral but also hope for justice, forgiveness, and redemption.
Responsibility and Human Sin, Not Religion
The claim that religion causes most wars is a myth clearly unsupported by history. The vast majority of human conflict arises from greed, power, pride, ethnic division, and ideological extremism - not genuine religious conviction!
In fact, some of the bloodiest regimes in history were founded on atheistic principles, not religious ones. And while people have done evil in the name of religion, this reflects more on human nature than on the religion itself - especially when the core teachings of that religion promote true peace, love, and justice.
Human beings are capable of great evil - not because they're religious or irreligious, but because of sin. Christianity doesn't deny this - it confronts it head on. Jesus came not to establish a worldly empire, but to change hearts, offering a path of reconciliation between God and man, and between man and his fellow man.
Ultimately, peace won't come by rejecting religion, but by embracing the Prince of Peace Himself - Jesus Christ. He gave His life for you and invites you to have and develop a personal relationship with God.
What will you decide? Will you follow the herd with irresponsible claims re religion or will you break away and follow the God that wants to know you?