Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence

by Hector Avalos

Is religion inherently violent? If not, what provokes violence in the name of religion? Do we mischaracterize religion by focusing too much on its violent side?

In this intriguing, original study of religious violence, Prof. Hector Avalos offers a new theory for the role of religion in violent conflicts. Starting with the premise that most violence is the result of real or perceived scarce resources, Avalos persuasively argues that religion creates new scarcities on the basis of unverifiable or illusory criteria. Through a careful analysis of the fundamental texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Dr. Avalos explains how four "scarce" resources have figured repeatedly in creating religious sacred space (churches, temples, holy cities); the creation of holy scriptures (exclusive revelations); group privilege (chosen people, the predestined select few); and salvation (only some are saved). Thus, Avalos shows, religious violence is often the most unnecessary violence of all since the scarce resources over which religious conflicts ensue are not actually scarce or need not be scarce.

Comparing violence in religious and nonreligious contexts, Avalos makes the compelling argument that if we condemn violence caused by scarce resources as morally objectionable, then we must consider even more objectionable violence provoked by alleged scarcities that cannot be proven to exist. Moreover, he shows how many modern academic biblical scholars and scholars of religion maintain the value of sacred texts despite their violence.

This serious philosophical examination of the roots of religious violence adds much to our understanding of a perennial source of widespread human suffering.

Genres: Religion, History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics

444 pages, Hardcover

First published April 8, 2005

About the author

Hector Avalos is a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University and the author of several books about religion. He is a former Pentecostal preacher and child evangelist. Recognized as one of the foremost scholars of health care in the ancient world, Avalos is also one of the most prominent secular humanist biblical scholars today.

He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Studies from Harvard University (1991), a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School (1985), and a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from the University of Arizona in 1982.

Avalos arrived at Iowa State University in the Fall of 1993 after completing a postdoctoral fellowship (1991-93) in the departments of Anthropology and Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 1996 Avalos was named Professor of the Year at Iowa State University, where he was also named a Master Teacher for 2003-04. Other awards include The Early Achievement in Research and Creative Activity Award (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 1996), and the Outstanding Professor Award (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 1996).

Since his arrival at Iowa State, Avalos has become an internationally-recognized critic of Intelligent Design creationism, and he is often linked with Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, the advocate of Intelligent Design who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in 2007. Avalos co-authored a statement against Intelligent Design in 2005, which was eventually signed by over 130 faculty members at Iowa State University. That faculty statement became a model for other statements at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa. Gonzalez and Avalos are both featured in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008).

Reviews

[Stephie Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review to follow

[Denise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought this would be a good follow-up to The End of History before I pick up The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Having just completed a book that discusses the Alamo* and having some cursory knowledge of groups that claim no religion yet have strong ideologies for justification of violence, safe to say that religion is not the root cause of all violence. Also, recent riots in the US seem to focus more on racial injustices. However, there is no doubt that religion is a tool, and that in fact religion is a primary justification for the majority of conflicts. I think the book hit on something when it mentioned "Us vs. Them" combined with scarcity. It is not true that scarcity will always lead to violence. It is true that once "Us" has been able to dehumanise "Them," scarcity can amp up problems and violence becomes likely.

Mr. Avalos provides Holy Land as an example of a scarcity. Because three major religions claim the same small piece of land as symbolically important, and each of the religions believe they have the greatest claim to that scarcity "Us", as long as more than one of the religions exists "Them", there will never be peace in the middle east. At best, there will be periods of grudging tolerance. This is unless the religions evolve to the point of realizing a bit of desert isn't important and not worth murdering over, "this land is for all of Us."

After Mr. Avalos establishes how religion artificially creates scarcity and gives a green light to force, using mainly Christian examples, he moves on to talk about Islam, Hitler, Stalin, and Secular violence. He ends the book with comparative ethics of violence, solutions, and foreign policy.

One area not covered is the decimating witch hunts that ran wild through Europe, touched the US, and are currently infecting other continents. An example I'm reminded of, outside this book, is C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Mr. Lewis defends the immoral act of witch burning. The argument is that if a person believes witchcraft* is real, and a loved one is being attacked, it is moral to get rid of the witch. C.S. Lewis clearly demonstrates how religion can be the cause of violence and condones murder, but I don't see this as a matter of scarcity. It is true that some witch hunts have economic reasons; i.e. coveting land or possessions (scarcity). Since not all perpetrators receive economic or spiritual gains from the torture and death of neighbors, I assume more than scarcity is at play.

For me, the focus should remain on "Us vs. Them," with scarcity being a trigger but not the only trigger.

Conclusion: Humans are violent, thus secular violence (violence of the tangible) can be immoral. Religious violence (violence of the intangible) is always immoral and it is always more immoral than secular violence. In order to reduce violence it is not necessary to get rid of religion (that may be impossible anyway) but it is necessary to take steps toward reducing or getting rid of the triggers. In my example, education and enlightenment is the best possible means of reducing the immoral and horrific practice of burning "witches" (violence in self-defense of the intagible). This has proven to be effective. In the case of scarcity, the author suggests desacralizing scripture, desacralizing space, deprivileging groups, and salvation as a common good. I propose that this has also been shown to work in highly secular countries.

*Mexico demanded that citizens convert to Catholicism in what is now Texas, but it also had other demands unrelated to religion or religious justifications.

*It is an unfortunate fact that religions are promoting witchcraft as real, along with demon possession and other bogus nonsense. Each year dozens and sometimes hundreds of people are tortured and killed under these false beliefs.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent academic review of what fosters religious violence and why killing in the name of mythical "things" is worse than killing for verifiable resources (not that war is ever good but it's worse when it's done over something that is not verifiable).

[Andrew Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a useful antidote to those who argue that there is no such thing as religiously motivated violence, such as Karen Armstrong. Drawing on scarce resource theory, Avalos lays out a thesis that religious violence is caused by fundamental religious characteristics, such as sacred space and group privilege. He then demonstrates his thesis by an analysis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in this context. In each case he devotes a chapter to defences of each religion from charges of violence against it, and shows why those defences are wrong.

Avalos' writing style is clear throughout. I found myself not always going the full distance with his conclusions, and I wonder if sometimes Avalos is contorting to make the data fit his model. Nonetheless, a valuable read.

[Pierre A Renaud]

AACON 2013 Hector Avalos: "Religion and Violence, A New Theory for an Old Problem" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQcG...

[Sara Sharick · Rating 5 out of 5]

If violence based on verifiable premises is sometimes or even often immoral or unethical, then violence based on unverifiable premises is both always wrong and always worse. Real things have more value than fake or unverifiable things.

The main thesis is that religion creates unverifiable scarce resources which results in violent attempts to maintain or acquire those resources. "Essentialism" is effectively trounced. One cherry-picked reading is no more objectively valid than another. One must make evaluations on empirco-rationalist grounds: what are the actual words?

Also great discussions on how concepts like "love" and "peace" can alternate mean what they, or they can condone violence such as when love actually means the promotion of an unverifiable soul over a person's physical health and well-being, or when peace really means hegemony of the religion in question.

[Jason Mingus · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely loved it! I realize some people may find it a bit dry, but the ideas presented were fantastic and really articulated my vague thoughts about the subject matter. Really great stuff.

3rd time through it!

[Nicole Shepard · Rating 1 out of 5]

Seemed to defeat the point more often than not. Sounded like an angry person spewing his/her opinion at anyone who may (or may not) want to listen.

Very disappointing.

[Toby Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book deserves a higher degree of fame and discussion when it comes to the sociology of religion. Not content just to broadly gesture to religiously-inspired violence, Avalos does an excellent job in really getting down to intricacies of violence and religiosities in and of themselves. Really, the only analysis I’ve seen on this matter previously, when religious motivations are even admitted for violence, have simply reduced it to the way in which irrational beliefs can make people behave irrationally. But in relating religious violence to artificial scarcity, Avalos has not only woven the nature of violence into important considerations for how religion operates on a psychological and sociological level, but invited a broader discussion into the way in which religion contributes to the many barriers facing those wanting to create a post-scarcity world. The only way in which this book falls short is that very little wider discussion on the implications is given beyond the thesis. I like to think that Avalos may have done more on this had he not passed before his time. (I am aware he wrote another book on religious violence in 2019, but I can’t find much in the synopsis to suggest it’s anything other than a rehash of this thesis. Does anyone know where I can find out if I’m wrong about that?)

But as is Avalos’ MO, he is painstakingly methodical in laying out his case, making sure we know where he’s at when he defines his terms. He’s certainly not ignorant of previous analyses and definitions of violence and religion, and makes careful cases for picking his terminology. He’s also absolutely thorough when dissecting specific religious traditions and how they create scarcities in the carefully chosen categories he’s identified.

But his thoroughness contrasts some rather glaring omissions - he credits Regina M. Schwartz for preceding him on relating religious violence to scarcity, but notes she was primarily referring to monotheism, and he felt his case was relevant to all religion. The fact that he only does a deep dive on three Abrahamic monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) makes his work feel incomplete. I feel cases could be made where the Dharmic religions create scarcities to the Abrahamic faiths in some ways, not so much in others (for example, from my lay understanding, Hinduism and Buddhism are big on group privileging and sacred space, not so much on salvation and inscripturation, though this is naturally dependent on sect). Admittedly, as a biblical scholar and academic on the Ancient Near East, this wouldn’t have been Avalos’ area of expertise compared to the Abrahamic faiths, but as he recommends a read on Buddhism’s complex relationship with violence near the end, one has to wonder why he couldn’t just draw from such findings with a recognition that he was dabbling in a field he’s less of an expert on, as he does when discussing Nazi and Soviet history.

Similarly, Avalos’ discussion of solutions makes up a considerably shorter part of the book than analysing the problem, and whilst he may have been reluctant to be too prescriptive in a more academic study, I don’t know if what he said, related in many ways to blue-sky thinking and general wonders, really matched the otherwise thoroughly researched book. There’s little talk, for example, on discussing whether actual scarcity (in material terms) is correlated with perceived scarcity in religiosity, and as a result religious violence could decrease with a more redistributive politics. This already has precedent in Marxist thought, and even if Avalos ultimately rejected it, it would still have been worth bringing up.

However, regardless of the missed opportunities, I still think this is a vital work for anyone interested in the challenges we as a species face in the realms of conflict, scarcity, violence, and role thought plays in driving us into those things. Though written from a secular humanist perspective, it has implications for religious believers who are active against violence and scarcity to consider also, in what are considered the ‘essentials’ of a belief and how important such an essentialisation even is. This recommendation comes as a reminder of one of the most underrated secular commentators of our time.

[Roger Green · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book makes a good case for the inherent violence in Abrahamic religions. It won't be convincing to believers of "essentialist" versions of any of those traditions. The scholarship is thorough, but its emphasis on scriptural analysis, although well done, leads one to wonder who Avalos's intended audience is. He counters trends in academic "apologies" of religion well, but, while he at least gives a definition of religion, that concept is rather monolithic and unchanging. Even though I tend to agree with a lot of what he says, he risks another kind of essentialism with his term 'religion.'