Religion-and-Terrorism handbook-chapter
The chapter by Jean‑Paul Carvalho surveys two dominant explanations for the link between religion and terrorism – the religious maladaptation hypothesis (religion as a direct cause of violence) and the religious substitution hypothesis (religion as an incidental banner for underlying political, economic, or psychological grievances). Both are found lacking. Carvalho proposes a third, the religious utility hypothesis, which argues that terrorist groups exploit the high utility of religion as a source of meaning and belonging for large numbers of people. By embedding violent duties within religious identity, groups can (1) elicit costlier sacrifices such as suicide attacks, (2) use a small cadre of extreme individuals to radicalize broader communities, and (3) infiltrate moderate religious institutions that are socially protected. The chapter develops a formal model linking religious utility (meaning μ and belonging β) to the level of demanded terrorist activity (s), showing that when religious utility exceeds a threshold, leaders can demand maximal sacrifice. It further discusses how secularization may raise religious utility, dynamic radicalization strategies (club formation, niche construction), and the search problem whereby moderate religious groups serve as stepping‑stones for more extreme cells. Policy implications stress that suppressing religion may reduce welfare, and counter‑terrorism should focus on preventing terrorist infiltration of religious ecologies rather than broad secularization. The chapter concludes with a call for research on quasi‑religious organizations and nuanced policy design.
Topics
Survey of Existing Explanations: Maladaptation vs. Substitution
Reviews the religious maladaptation hypothesis (religion as a direct cause of terrorism) and the religious substitution hypothesis (religion as incidental, with terrorism driven by economic, political, or psychological factors).