Does historical record show that religious people are more violent than non religious people or the other way around?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The historical record does not support a simple verdict that religious people are uniformly more violent than nonreligious people; scholarship shows violence has been perpetrated under both religious and secular ideologies and that religion often functions as a vehicle for broader political, economic or social conflicts rather than as a sole cause [1] [2] [3]. Epidemiological and sociological studies add nuance: religiosity correlates with lower individual-level violence in some contexts (e.g., adolescent service attendance), while at the societal level secular countries often register lower homicide and violent-crime rates, implicating social institutions and structural conditions as key drivers [4] [5] [6].
1. Historical complexity: religion as cloak, not always cause
Historians and religious studies scholars caution against a deterministic reading that treats religion as the primary engine of violence; many conflicts labeled “religious” — from the Thirty Years’ War to more recent ethnic wars — have deep political, economic, and social roots, with religion invoked to legitimize or mobilize parties rather than originate the quarrel [1] [2] [3].
2. Atrocities under secular banners complicate the narrative
Modern history supplies stark examples of mass violence carried out by explicitly secular regimes — notably in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia — reminding analysts that ideological secularity is no safeguard against large-scale atrocity and that cruelty is not the monopoly of the devout [1] [3].
3. Aggregate patterns: secular societies and lower violent crime
Cross-national and subnational comparisons have found that more secular societies tend to have lower rates of homicide and many measures of violent crime, and commentators note that higher social trust, robust institutions, and welfare supports correlate with peace and wellbeing in less religious countries [5]. This pattern suggests institutional context matters more than private belief alone.
4. Individual-level religiosity and violence: mixed but often protective
Survey-based research finds that individual religious practice can correlate with lower odds of certain violent behaviors — for example, adolescent attendance at religious services is associated with decreased likelihood of violent attacks across racial groups in U.S. data — indicating religion can be socially integrating and restraining in many communities [4].
5. Social context, disadvantage, and the moderation effect of religion
Sociological work shows that concentrated disadvantage and structural inequality are strong predictors of aggregate violence, while religious homogeneity or institutional religious life can, in some contexts, moderate that relationship and reduce anomie-driven violence — a pattern that varies by race, region, and local social structures [6].
6. Rising religious hostilities and targeted violence in recent decades
Global indices and policy briefs document increases in social hostilities and government-perpetrated violence directed at religious groups in recent years, demonstrating that religion can be the axis for persecution and that state alignment with a dominant faith can intensify vulnerability for minorities [7] [8] [9].
7. Scholarly debates and the risk of politicized narratives
There are two enduring but opposed scholarly frames: one treats violence as intrinsic to religion or particular traditions, while the other situates religious violence in contingent historical circumstances; critics warn that labeling violence “religious” can serve geopolitical narratives that otherize non-Western societies and obscure colonial or secular violences [10] [2].
Conclusion: no simple causal verdict — context rules
Taken together, the sources show that neither religiosity nor nonreligiosity is a reliable, singular predictor of violence; rather, violence emerges from political contests, socioeconomic pressures, identity struggles, and institutional incentives, with religion sometimes amplifying or restraining conflict depending on context — therefore historical record argues for conditional, context-dependent explanations rather than a categorical judgment that religious people are inherently more (or less) violent than nonreligious people [1] [2] [6] [5].