Description: Religion is often blamed for human action that usually has very little to do with religion.

Question: What forces have shaped humanity most?

Transcript: I would reframe the question, and I would actually talk about the forces within each of us as human beings.  I think . . . I really believe very strongly in the idea of human agency.  I believe in free will and I believe in choices.  I don’t think that historical forces cause things to happen.  I think human beings create historical forces.  And so where we are today is a product of individual choices.  And that is . . . I guess if we agree that where we are today isn’t a very good place, I would blame that – if you can use the word “blame” – on us as a human race falling prey to selfishness, and to going more with the call of quick benefit rather than long term selfless compassion.  So if there is an answer to that very difficult question, I would place it squarely in the lap of human agency and decisions that people make that might not be true to even their own espoused values.

Question: How has religion shaped the world?

Transcript: Well I think religion – especially today – is often blamed for what human beings decide to do that usually has very little to do with religion.  So if I look at several studies . . . and I just go back to the empirical evidence, and even outside of Gallup to a recent study done at the University of Michigan.  It showed that sympathy for extremism – the same thing that I’m studying – there is absolutely no predictive value of religiosity.  There is no predictive value even of religious orientation, meaning are you conservative or liberal.  So I think we put too much blame on religion.  And fall into to the scientific mistake of mistaking correlation for cause.  Yes, there is a correlation between people who commit violent acts and the fact that they claim to be religious.  But correlation and cause are two different things.  It might be more likely that this is the dominant social currency of the Muslim world . . . is Islam, just as Arab nationalism was 30 years ago.  And 30 years ago when the PLO would carry out a terrorist act, they did it in the name of secular nationalism.  Today that same act is now done in the name of Islam.  And it’s simply . . . The big difference is it’s a different social currency, a different social milieu that these two acts are occurring in.  And so the terrorists – being somewhat clever people, although not very smart – use the vehicle that is most convenient at the time.  And it will always be what resonates with people around them.  I think it’s even more important, though, to point out that it essentially hasn’t worked, because the vast majority reject the tactics of terrorist groups in this part of the world.

Question: How can people of different faiths co-exist?

Transcript: Well, I guess I’ll say . . . this might sound funny, but I don’t think co-existence is the right goal.  I think it’s too small a goal, and it’s too . . . And I think part of the problem is that our goals are sometimes too small.  Now with us . . . with people of different faiths clashing, sometimes it seems like a very ambitious goal just to co-exist.  But I believe if we can make our goal instead active cooperation between diverse groups of people where there is actually a benefit in cooperating for everyone involved, there is an incentive for . . . that people are . . . feel that they are being enriched by interacting, and learning from others who are different from them.  Only then will we actually have peace. When our goal is the absence of the negative, any small misunderstanding will turn into a crisis.  Case in point is like the cartoon controversy.  That might look like a very small incident from the outside, but it exploded into a global crisis.  And I believe it’s because there isn’t enough . . . not co-existence, but there isn’t enough active cooperation between groups.  And when we have that interdependence of actually benefitting by cooperating, not just co-existing, it becomes much more likely that we’ll (a) forgive these small things when they happen, but (2) that they won’t happen to begin with because we will have an incentive to better understand each other.  But I believe that it’s . . . you know we live . . . the cliché is “the global village”; but it’s really true.  And in the global village, there really is no other choice.  It’s either clash or active co-existence . . . or active cooperation.  And if we don’t go for that positive, active engagement with one another, I think clash is just the inevitable outcome.

Recorded on: 7/3/07