Is Religion Dangerous? is a book by Keith Ward examining the questions: "Is religion dangerous? Does it do more harm than good? Is it a force for evil?" It was first published in 2006. Looking at the evidence from history, philosophy, sociology and psychology, Ward focuses on the main question at issue: does religion do more harm than good? He begins by examining the key area of religion and violence and goes on to assess the allegations of irrationality and immorality, before exploring the good religion has done over the centuries. He suggests that without religion the human race would be considerably worse off and there would be little hope for the future.
Summary
In the Introduction: What is religion?, Ward begins, "Is religion dangerous? Does it do more harm than good? Is it a force for evil, even 'the root of all evil'?"—the title of a short British television series presented by Richard Dawkins. Ward states his view that the assertion that religion does more harm than good ignores "the available evidence from history, from psychology and sociology, and from philosophy" and suggests that proponents of this view "refuse to investigate the question in a properly rigorous way, and substitute rhetoric for analysis". He suggests that it is impossible to give a satisfactory universal definition of religion, and that early opponents of religion such as Edward Taylor, James Frazer and Émile Durkheim were indulging in "scholarly fantazising" about forms of primitive religion which were refuted by more rigorous studies such as Theories of Primitive Religion by Evans-Pritchard. "Unfortunately some writers have not yet realised this", such as Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell, who "does not seem to realise that the spell was broken as long ago as 1884 when E. B. Tylor was appointed to a Readership in Anthropology at Oxford University."
In Chapters 1 through 3, which deal with the origins and nature of violence, Ward suggests that "It is not religion that causes intolerance. It is intolerance that uses religion", that "The leaders of such movements [are] using moral and religious language as a cloak for evil and irreligious ends", and that "religions are not the causes of evil, but they do naturally share in the general moral state of the societies in which they exist". Ward suggests that any organised human activity can be corrupted, and that the corruptions of religion, although highly regrettable, are less harmful that the corruptions of secular ideologies (Nazism, Leninism and Maoism all claimed the support of science). In addition the great religions have within themselves a powerful critique of corruption. Ward, alluding to Islamic terrorism, alleges that "it is not religion that causes Islamic terrorism. It is a version of Islam that has been corrupted by ...Marxist-Leninism" and that al-Qaeda is based on a demonstrably incorrect interpretation of Islam. He further suggests that wars fought in the name of some interpretations of Christianity have also been based on distortions.
Ward examines the interplay of reason, morality, and philosophy in Chapters 4 through 8. He claims that the statement "the only reasonable beliefs are those that can be confirmed by the methods of science, by public observation, measurement and experiment" is self-refuting. He contrasts four worldviews—Common Sense, Materialism, Idealism and Christian Theism—and suggests that there are serious problems with Common Sense (science shows that things are often not in fact as they seem at all) and Materialism ("quantum physics seems to dissolve matter entirely", and "consciousness and the contents of consciousness resist translation into purely physical terms... and if ... truth, beauty and goodness ... are things that really exist ... then Materialism will not match our experience at all"). He suggests that "many attacks on religion are based on the belief that idealism is false. There is no spiritual dimension to reality... to make matters worse, thinkers like Richard Dawkins hold that...religious views are based on 'blind faith'". But, he asks, "Has Dawkins never read any philosophy?... Does he really think that Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant and Hegel were all unthinking simpletons?" "Looking around my philosopher colleagues in Britain, virtually all of whom I know at least from their published work, I would say that very few of them are materialists... the point is that religious views are underpinned by highly sophisticated philosophical arguments". He discusses the defensibility of worldviews and suggests some criteria that make a worldview reasonable: