What do you think?
Rate this book
Is Religion Dangerous?
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. 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? is a trenchant response to today's critics of religion.
206 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
7 people are currently reading
156 people want to read
About the author
Keith Ward
158 books53 followersKeith Ward was formerly the Regius Professor of Divinity and Head of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford. A priest of the Church of England and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, he holds Doctor of Divinity degrees from Cambridge and Oxford Universities. He has lectured at the universities of Glasgow, St. Andrew's and Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
September 6, 2017
This is an excellent book. The author gives some well reasoned and reasonable answers to the to title of the book. It is a book that you might to read in concert with The God Delusion by Dawkins as well as The Myth of Religious Violence by Cavanaugh. The author does not simply defend religion and ignore the ways that it can be perverted and cause real pain in people lives. He does provide (and or remind depending on where you are at on the subject) rational thinking that belief in God is not irrational and therefore not the root cause of hate, war, and discontent in the world. "So is religion dangerous? Sometimes it is. But it is also one of the most powerful forces in the world for good." pg 200
April 18, 2023
In the words of Edna Mode, “Pull yourself together man.”
October 30, 2013
Books of this genre have become very popular since the last decade for obvious reasons, and i wasnt prepared for anything new. Was expecting something along the line of either catherine catherwood on one hand or probably karen armstrong on the other.
But this book has pleasant surprises installed for me… well at least in the first section.
Defenders of religions have always harped on this particular fact when faced with allegations of their beliefs causing violence: history has shown that violence in the past is mostly caused by non-religious proponents.
Which is true – from maoist regime to hitler’s third reich to the two world wars, the ugly historical episodes in human history were indeed enacted by perverted ideologies and personal political agenda which made use of people’s ignorance and prejudices.
Yet this has never been a satisfactory answer for me.
Of course no one can deny the fact that the worst atrocities at least in terms of numbers were caused by non-religious socio-political interest groups, but this does not dismiss the fact that some wars in history were indeed caused religiously – be they inter-religion or intra-religion strifes.
Using one to defend the other is just like telling others, though i stole an apple, i am still good compared to another who stole a truckful. In my opinion, by arguing this way, a defender of religions has not even presented a valid case.
But am glad the author did – the gist of his position is this: religious or non-religious, violence is the result of perverted human nature. Religious or secular ideologies, due to the power associated to them, were unfortunately abused by human beings- which is the same line as saying the love of money and not money itself is the root of all evil.
This line of argument takes the platform of discussion one level down to address the root of the issue – instead of stopping at the surface and commenting on phenomenal ones, commonly addressing the problem by either (1) going through the history of religions; and (2) examining the correct interpretation of religious doctrines.
And this step, although often considered most natural on retrospect, seldom cross the minds of many people when they examine the role of religions in the human history of violence (though this approach has its naiveness too – we will come to that.)
But this is for the first section only. The rest of the book went back to the same track of discussing religions again, which i think is inevitable, with the second section discussing the rationality of religious beliefs and third part on its relation to morality. Well to be fair, it might be interesting to some – but there is really not much new – or so i think.
The book ends with the good brought about by religions, and we know the rest of the story.
In an interesting way, the author is very much like russell when he talks about the objective goodness of life. The only difference is that he thinks this can only be brought about by a Being who is the source of it, the reasons being man can never rationally desire goodness beyond himself.
Which is in line with his starting point of a perverted human nature - and in this aspect, he is perfectly consistent.
Though i must also add that by pushing the reponsibility of violence from seemingly harmless and phenomenal religions to the underlying perverted human nature, his weakness lies in giving less emphasis on the intrinsic evil within certain religious doctrines and painting a much too rosy picture of religions as a whole.
It is just like philosophy – we can always say it is not philosophy that leads mind astray but the mind itself that distorts philosophy. But we cant deny the fact that there are bad philosophies as well (in fact, this is why good philosophies must exist.)
And for that matter, this book has to be read together with others which examine religions phenomenally, and this is where people like catherwood comes in.
But this book has pleasant surprises installed for me… well at least in the first section.
Defenders of religions have always harped on this particular fact when faced with allegations of their beliefs causing violence: history has shown that violence in the past is mostly caused by non-religious proponents.
Which is true – from maoist regime to hitler’s third reich to the two world wars, the ugly historical episodes in human history were indeed enacted by perverted ideologies and personal political agenda which made use of people’s ignorance and prejudices.
Yet this has never been a satisfactory answer for me.
Of course no one can deny the fact that the worst atrocities at least in terms of numbers were caused by non-religious socio-political interest groups, but this does not dismiss the fact that some wars in history were indeed caused religiously – be they inter-religion or intra-religion strifes.
Using one to defend the other is just like telling others, though i stole an apple, i am still good compared to another who stole a truckful. In my opinion, by arguing this way, a defender of religions has not even presented a valid case.
But am glad the author did – the gist of his position is this: religious or non-religious, violence is the result of perverted human nature. Religious or secular ideologies, due to the power associated to them, were unfortunately abused by human beings- which is the same line as saying the love of money and not money itself is the root of all evil.
This line of argument takes the platform of discussion one level down to address the root of the issue – instead of stopping at the surface and commenting on phenomenal ones, commonly addressing the problem by either (1) going through the history of religions; and (2) examining the correct interpretation of religious doctrines.
And this step, although often considered most natural on retrospect, seldom cross the minds of many people when they examine the role of religions in the human history of violence (though this approach has its naiveness too – we will come to that.)
But this is for the first section only. The rest of the book went back to the same track of discussing religions again, which i think is inevitable, with the second section discussing the rationality of religious beliefs and third part on its relation to morality. Well to be fair, it might be interesting to some – but there is really not much new – or so i think.
The book ends with the good brought about by religions, and we know the rest of the story.
In an interesting way, the author is very much like russell when he talks about the objective goodness of life. The only difference is that he thinks this can only be brought about by a Being who is the source of it, the reasons being man can never rationally desire goodness beyond himself.
Which is in line with his starting point of a perverted human nature - and in this aspect, he is perfectly consistent.
Though i must also add that by pushing the reponsibility of violence from seemingly harmless and phenomenal religions to the underlying perverted human nature, his weakness lies in giving less emphasis on the intrinsic evil within certain religious doctrines and painting a much too rosy picture of religions as a whole.
It is just like philosophy – we can always say it is not philosophy that leads mind astray but the mind itself that distorts philosophy. But we cant deny the fact that there are bad philosophies as well (in fact, this is why good philosophies must exist.)
And for that matter, this book has to be read together with others which examine religions phenomenally, and this is where people like catherwood comes in.
July 31, 2011
Although I am, to a large extent, in agreement with the main thrust of the author's argument that religion is not pure evil but have done a significant amount of good for the world, I am however less approving of how he characterised the crimes committed in the name of religion as simply being caused by other factors (for example, human corruption) while identifying the good supposedly contributed by religion as mainly, if not essentially, due to religion.
Also, while the author managed to put forward a seemingly objective stance in the beginning few chapters of the book, I however begin to, towards the middle and end of the book, detect an implicit anti-non religious and pro-Christianity tone in the book.
On the overall, I will however still recommend this book to those who are interested in the perennial debate over whether religion is a force for good or evil in society.
Also, while the author managed to put forward a seemingly objective stance in the beginning few chapters of the book, I however begin to, towards the middle and end of the book, detect an implicit anti-non religious and pro-Christianity tone in the book.
On the overall, I will however still recommend this book to those who are interested in the perennial debate over whether religion is a force for good or evil in society.
January 12, 2008
I thought that this book was a very good refutation of much of the hay that The New Atheism likes to make regarding religious belief. Ward is way to the theological left of myself, but I can overlook that. The essential nuggets buried in his book easily show the unscholarly, sophomoric, and puerile nature of the critiques leveled by The New Atheism. Atheists should be embarrassed by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens - and indeed, many are!
October 1, 2007
An interesting book. Im not religious and dont generally support religion but the author makes some excellent points about human nature and organizations. Definitly a good read especially if you agree with the Tite.
February 14, 2008
This book is a retort to Dawkins "The God Delusion"
July 29, 2014
Interesting thoughts; weak on non-Western religions (though this is admitted by the author outright). Worth the read.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews