Religious altruism turns violent only under perceived group threat in asymmetric conflict

Evidence

Religious participation among Palestinians and West Bank Jewish settlers increased support for violence against the perceived enemy, whereas in Clingingsmith’s results, participation led to more tolerant attitudes. How do we square these two sets of results? I think there are two critical details that, once taken into account, resolve this gap. One is to appreciate that suicide attacks, as appalling and destructive as they are, are a form of altruism—in fact, the ultimate kind that requires sacrificing one’s own life for the group. It is only in political contexts where there is asymmetric conflict and there are strong feelings that one’s group is under threat that altruism turns violent. In less conflict-prone contexts, when there is no target to attack or adversary to scapegoat, religious attendance would be more about sacrificing and less about attacking. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 540

Categorization

• XREF: Directly connects to the reader’s stated purpose: violence-as-altruism mechanism bridges Norenzayan’s Big God thesis and Baumard’s partner-choice account of costly religious display — the fumi-e trampling and martyrdom are both costly signals that take on violent or pro-social valence depending on context. — connects to: Cultural superiority paired with felt weakness predisposes groups to violence against others. — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 96