Abstract

The claim that religion is inherently prone to violence is a commonplace of contemporary thought along with the associated idea that the non-religious are much less prone to resort to violence. Some form of this claim is a factor in attempts to place restrictions on the role of religion in liberal democratic societies. This paper argues that the commonplace claim is confused in several different ways and that while religion is sometimes a component in a complex mix that can produce violence it is often a less significant factor than others in that mix, and otherwise it is often enough causally irrelevant to disturbing outbreaks of violence, including political disturbances. So, when considering the high degree of premature, indiscriminate, ill-judged or fanatical violence that human beings are prone to, we need to examine the causes in cultural and psychological terms without a presiding bias in favour of one element alone.