God’s Words moves through myth, theology, cultural anthropology, and scriptural analysis to explore how sacred literature, often viewed as peaceful and divine, has historically justified violence, particularly when interpreted through the lens of dogma. Why was this an important book for you to write?

God’s Words is important to me because it is my reaction to an ancient and very modern question: if the Sacred Scripture has divine origin, could it rationally justify violence?

What is a common misconception you feel people have about religious extremism?

While most people are aware that militant extremism supported by faith can jeopardize our society’s fabric, there is a poor understanding of the dogmas that support religious aggression against innocents, considered infidels. 

Deactivating religious zealots’ danger implies deciphering what could be called magic logic, or the illusory assemblage of thoughts and allegories collected over centuries in mystic literature.

Instead of decoding religious education learning in infancy, a common misconception involves confronting its emotional structure with analytical data. As a result, some spiritual personalities may develop resistance in the form of fairy-tale elucidation supported by deceptive reasoning.

Such a struggle could provoke fanatic believers, and some of them may respond violently to conflictive scientific information and discard its empirical foundation. Hence, instead of deactivating a zealot danger, we risk triggering it in response to what zealots typically consider hostile and offensive pressure. The best approach to reduce the number of organizations controlled by religious extremists is by decoding mystical dogmas because it reduces the number of their followers, thus increasing world peace. 

What were some ideas that were important for you to share in this book?

Those ideas emerged after I asked myself: if a divinity denies the innocent non-believers their human rights, is it perhaps such a “God” behaving as a larger version of some powerful fundamentalist group? 

I found that the answer is affirmative; while covered with a mask of respected ethical values, religion may be influenced to behave as a political tool. Therefore, an innocent infidel who deserves to die is a partisan convenience, and his final condemnation is not the will of some eternal God. When extreme religious fanaticism ignores the suffering of infidels because they have a different faith, such behavior is a kind of self-worship; thus, it is a sign of emotional disorientation and points to a gap in psychological balance. 

Traditionally, cults and worship aim to help a society develop a solidarity ethos. Still, at the same time, a belligerent righteousness movement grows, supporting Holly Doctrines that organize the universe according to local rituals. 

Gradually, a Divine Cause emerges, helping to deny human values to those who do not share some spiritual standards, which are believed to be eternal principles. During that process, the zealots disregard that throughout history, theology has never logically described reality; it has been emotionally interpreting circumstances with parameter values changing with social development. Religion is not divine revelation, but a consequence (chapter 13) of progressive communal creation within cultural evolution. Therefore, holy disclosure has no role (chapter 12) in dogma redaction. 

What is one thing that you hope readers take away from God’s Words?

Usually, it is forgotten that faith is very close to personal feelings, and both may be manipulated politically (chapter 5) until they degenerate into unhealthy emotionalism, which paralyzes self-criticism. Unfortunately, human history has multiple instances of war and political cruelty, with its intolerance supported by religious dogmas and misguided faith.