....Ms Armstrong is badly cherry picking, reinterpreting and oversimplifying in that essay on SO MANY INSTANCES.
Like. As badly as the mode of thought she's calling out. At least.
I mean I agree with her general thesis which is that the idea that somehow religion is particularly prone to cause warfare is absurd (significantly more people have died in power struggles over rulership in which all other considerations were if not irrelevant then certainly hijacked at best), but that doesn't excuse the bad historical exegesis.
no subject
Like. As badly as the mode of thought she's calling out. At least.
I mean I agree with her general thesis which is that the idea that somehow religion is particularly prone to cause warfare is absurd (significantly more people have died in power struggles over rulership in which all other considerations were if not irrelevant then certainly hijacked at best), but that doesn't excuse the bad historical exegesis.