ABSTRACT
According to some critics, religions are divisive forces in human societies. They are suspected to increase the probability, intensity and duration of armed conflicts. In his writings, David Martin criticizes this position as ideological. He holds that armed conflicts mostly follow the profane logics of group conflict under the conditions of scarcity and anarchy. By discussing cutting-edge research on the dynamics of armed conflict, this paper supports the position of David Martin: religions are not particularly divisive forces in human societies. At the same time, however, it is argued that David Martin puts too much emphasis on the unavoidability of war. This leads him to underestimate the impact religious communities can have on conflict escalation and de-escalation. Moreover, his reluctance to develop a generic understanding of what religions are about – a reluctance which is firmly rooted in his context-oriented sociology – induces him to see religions at work where they might not be. In a nutshell, while David Martin is certainly right to point to the inevitable inflections of religious traditions to the exigencies of political power struggles, his perspective faces problems to perceive the critical potential of religious beliefs. As the paper concludes, it is this critical potential that can make religions decisive forces for armed conflict prevention and post-conflict peace-building.
