Is Religion Dangerous? (Paperback)

by Keith Ward (Author)
Key Phrases: Catholic Church, Old Testament, Church of England (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist
*Starred Review* Although he lacks the glibness, arrogance, and fame of best-selling antireligionists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, Ward neatly cuts the ground from under such global-village atheists. He points out their definitional haziness about the key terms religion and danger the paltriness of the evidence for their claims, and their reliance on outdated, unverifiable anthropological and psychological speculations. And that's only in the introduction. Religion and violence, religion and irrationality, religion and morality, and whether religion does more harm than good are the topics of the short book's four parts proper, and in each Ward demonstrates that clear, consistent, and logical relationships between ill effects and religious motivations cannot be established. If religion is violent, how to explain Quakers and Buddhists? If irrational, then those philosophical reconcilers of reason and faith Kant, Descartes, and Aquinas must be refuted. Religious belief seems immoral only when scripture is cherry-picked, and whether religion harms more than helps the person and society has yet to be demonstrated. Ward argues with the findings of social science research and philosophy rather than scripture, and he concludes with boilerplate ecumenism only after having reassured readers that God-bashing celebs don't, perhaps can't, know what they're yakking about. Ray Olson
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Product Description
Holy wars, crusades, discrimination, intolerance -- these by-products of religion are all that many contemporary commentators can see. But is religion dangerous? Is it a force for evil or even "the root of all evil," as Richard Dawkins has claimed? Does religion lead to terrorism and violence? Are religious beliefs irrational and immoral?

One of Britain's foremost philosopher-theologians, Keith Ward here addresses these concerns with intelligence and insight. After defining exactly what religion is, he examines the subject of religion and violence, assesses the allegations of irrationality and immorality, and asks whether religion does more harm than good. Looking hard at the evidence from history, philosophy, sociology, and psychology, he shows the good that religion has done over the centuries. Without religion, he argues, the human race would be considerably worse off and have little hope for the future.

Thought-provoking and compellingly argued, Is Religion Dangerous? will be essential reading for anyone interested in the confluence of truth, freedom, religion, and culture.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 206 pages
• Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Presentable Ex-Library edition (February 26, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0802845088
• ISBN-13: 978-0802845085
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #655,537 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent and thought-provoking book, October 15, 2006

By	Helen Hancox "Auntie Helen" (Essex, England) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Is Religion Dangerous? (Paperback)

This excellently-written and very readable book has 200 pages dealing with this most modern of issues - is religion dangerous? Keith Ward explores how we define religion and the ways in which religions and groups can be seen to be `dangerous' where their intent might be quite the opposite.

I liked the way that he drew examples from all aspects of life and history - Christianity, Islam, Nazi Germany, the Crusades, Iraq, Quakers, Buddhism and more. This wide-ranging look at the world and the religions that are part of it, their history and form today and ways in which their followers can be dangerous was excellently portrayed.

His conclusion - that it's the human within the religion that is dangerous, not the religion itself - is perhaps not a surprise but his masterly arguments are well worth reading. A useful book to encourage thought and dialogue within Christianity and other religions.

14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A Concise and Intelligent Rebuttal of Atheist Arguments, June 12, 2007

By	George P. Wood (Santa Barbara, CA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Is religion dangerous?

In recent books, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens argue that it is. Keith Ward disagrees. His new book rebuts four standard atheist arguments:

First, religion causes violence, e.g., the Crusades and Islamic terrorism. But as Ward points out, "hatred of life, of others and of oneself" is the cause of violence. Anything human can be corrupted by such hatred, including religion and even atheism. How many millions did Communist regimes kill in the 20th Century, after all?

Second, faith is irrational. Specifically, it's unscientific. Ward responds, "Many of the most important beliefs we have in life are not scientifically testable, but we still live our lives by them." Intelligent people believe in God, offer reasons for their beliefs, and practice their faith humanely. They are not irrational.

Third, religion promotes immorality. There are many violent stories in the Old Testament that are hard for Christians to explain. But atheists fail to see that such hard cases make bad law. Jesus taught that love of God, neighbor, and self is our basic moral duty (Matthew 22:37-40). What is immoral about that?

Fourth, religion is unhealthy. Freud famously called religious belief a neurosis. But citing numerous studies, Ward reaches the opposite conclusion: "the influence of religion on personal life...is overall and in general good."

I disagree with Ward here and there. He occasionally defends Islam where I wouldn't. And he makes a few political remarks which I disagree with. But overall, I'm impressed by his concise and intelligent rebuttal of atheist arguments.

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A well-argued and timely argument for religion, March 2, 2008

By	Mazen Elfakhani (Austin, TX USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Keith Ward is a philosopher, theologian, and Christian Cleric; and a fellow of the British Academy. This is the first book of his I've read, and it has certainly encouraged me to want to explore more of his writings.

This is a very timely book. With the popularity of books like Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great", there seems to be a paucity of books presenting the other side.

Ward is a clear writer and makes very reasoned arguments. The simplistic reduction of religion to "irrationality" and its supposed irreconcilability with reason is systematically (and effectively) shredded to pieces throughout the book. Ward demonstrates that the "reason vs. faith" dichotomy is false and dangerous. He evinces a deep understanding of his atheistic arguments, and acknowledges their strengths and identifies their weakness.

The crux of the book is its attempt to debunk the idea that religion is dangerous. Ward states his position early on in the book, and sets about defending it from philosophical, anthropological, historical, psychological, and sociological viewpoints. This defense is basically very successful. Even if at the end of this book one does not concede all
the points Ward makes, the general argument that the good religion has produced far outweighs the bad, should be obvious. The great majority of wars throughout history have NOT been religious, despite the popular idea that that is not so. Religion's effects on health and happiness are very well documented, and the religious dissent of Jesus was intellectually linked to the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

An excellent point Ward makes is that anti-religionists often choose the most rudimentary forms of religion (e.g. Durkheim, although he wasn't quite anti-religious), rather than facing off with the most intellectually sophisticated religionists. This is very evident in the writings of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennet.

Another excellent point is that beliefs do not operate outside socio-economic contexts. So, Ward argues that rather than asking 'Is Religion Dangerous', one must ask, 'Is this particular religion, at this stage in its development, dangerous in this social context'?

Other strengths are: (1) his argument against the idea that religion is based on fear is strong; (2) criticism of ethical theories based on desires, rather than reason; (3) argument that in many ways the enlightenment undermined the scope and power of reason by, in the words of David Hume, making reason the 'slave of the passions'; (4) discussion on positive and negative liberty; (5) his understanding of Judaism and Islam is excellent, and his likening of radical Islamic terrorism to Marxism is very sharp and well-thought out. He points out that just as the great majority of Christians would reject terrorism done in Christianity's name, the great majority of Muslims reject terrorism done in Islam's name.

Unlike his opponents on the other side, Ward evinces quite clearly his understanding of the real dangers of religion (although again, he clearly shows the benefits of religion outweigh its problems). He argues that the dangers of religion can be reduced by: (1) dissociating the church from imperialist centers of power; (2) renouncing liberal paternalism; and (3) by churches being aware of social structures in which churches are likely to become corrupt.

WEAKNESSES: Ward equates lack of religion with a lack of belief in moral objectivity. He is vague on whether he believes this, but it is implied. Whether or not it is true, he does not defend that position and many moral philosophers would disagree with that position, which calls for him to defend it. Also, while he certainly does not justify the Catholic church in medieval Europe, he often lets it off too lightly.

Strongly recommended.