http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous%%3F

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".[1] 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 Emile
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. P. Taylor was appointed to a Readership in
Anthropology at Oxford University."[2]

[edit] Part One: Religion and violence
In Chapter 1. The Causes of Violence he 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"[3] 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"[4]

In Chapter 2. The corruptibility of all things human he 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 (the excesses of the Nazis,
Leninists and Maoists all claimed the support of science). In addition
the great religions have within themselves a powerful critique of
corruption.

In Chapter 3. Religion and war he suggests that "it is not religion
that causes Islamic terrorism. It is a version of Islam that has been
corrupted by ...Marxist-Leninism"[5] and that Al Qaida 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.

[edit] Part Two: Are religious beliefs irrational?
In Chapter 4. Faith and reason he points out 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[6] 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".[7] 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?"[8] "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".[9] He
discusses the contestability of worldviews and suggests some criteria
on what makes a worldview reasonable:

Clarity and precision in stating the beliefs, ideally arranged in
order of logical dependence so that one can tell which are the truly
basic beliefs
Comparison with other worldviews
Testing the adequacy of the worldview to the widest range of data,
whether they are experiences or other beliefs
In Chapter 5. Life after death he suggests that it is rational, and
not harmful, to believe in life after death.

[edit] Part Three: Are religious beliefs immoral?
In Ch 6. Morality and the Bible he suggests that "even for the most
conservative Christian, moral rules found in the Bible should not be
taken out of context"[10] and that "far from being considered
dangerous, religious morality is widely considered to be a valuable
resource for moral thinking in the modern world"[11]

In Ch 7. Morality and Faith he explains how his own journey from
Atheism when he was a philosopher teaching at Glasgow University was
strongly influenced by the need to have a philosophically coherent
justification for morality.

In Ch. 8. The Enlightenment, liberal thought and religion he suggests
that the history of Europe from the 16th to the 20th Centuries was not
one of "beneficial liberation from fear and supersitition" but "an age
of increasingly addressive nationalism culminating in two world
wars ... barbarism did not decrease. In the twentieth century it
reached heights never previously imagined"[12] and that religiously
inspired individuals took a leading role in many benficial
developments.[13] He suggests that "it was religion, and not secular
thought, that propounded the view that nature is founded on a deep
rationality"[14] and defends liberalism and pluralism in religious
thought which he attributes to the rise of Protestantism and contrasts
with what he considers the illiberal attitudes of Richard Dawkins[15]
and Enlightenment thinkers like Hume who sought to make reason the
slave of passions[16]

[edit] Part Four: Does religion do more harm than good?
In Ch 9. Does religion do more harm than good in personal life? Ward
quotes data from David Myers citing surveys by Gallup, the National
Opinion Research Centre and the Pew Organisation which conclude that
spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very
happy" than the least religiously committed people.[17] He reports an
analysis of over 200 social studies that "high religiousness predicts
a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide
attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with life and a sense of
well-being"[18] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed
journals that "concluded that a large majority of these studies showed
a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels
of perceived well-being and self-esteem, and lower levels of
hypertension, depression and clinical delinquency,[19] and similar
results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health.[20] He cites
surveys suggesting a strong link between faith and altruism.[21] He
cites extensive studies to show that there is little or no evidence
that religion ever causes mental disorders[22] and that overall
religion is a positive contributor to mental health.

He specifically addresses and rebuts the claim that religious belief
is a delusion. He quotes the definition in the Oxford Companion to
Mind as "a fixed, idiosyncratic belief, unusual in the culture to
which the person belongs" suggesting that "most great philosophers
have believed in God"[23] and that the many religious people who
exhibit a high degree of rational ability ... and who can produce a
reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs" refute the idea that
belief in God is a delusion - whether or not it may be mistaken.[24]
He also analyses and rejects the idea that Faith is a brain
malfunction, quoting Gerald Edelman "The evolutionary assumption [that
consciousness conferred fitness].. implies that consciousness is
efficacious - that is, it is not an epiphenomenon"[25] and suggests
that, if consciousness can apprehend truth and cause action, so can
faith.

In Ch 10. What good has religion done? Ward suggests that, although
harm has been done in the name of religion, the same is true of
politics and science, that religion can "be used to inspire heroic
love and commitment. The world would be much poorer without Martin
Luther King, Gandhi, Mother Teresa.. Bach ... St Francis, Siddartha
Gautama and Jesus".[26] He cites many positive contributions made by
Judaism, Christianity (he cites in particular founding hospitals,
hospices, schools and universities, great works of art, the
investigation into the world as the creation of one wise and rational
God that gave birth to modern science,[27] the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, and the Red Cross) and Islam and suggests
that "there is plenty of room for common social action in mercy and
hospitality between Christians and Muslims, and it is imperative that
such commonalities are promoted".[28] He concludes by stating that
Religion "is the compassionate heart of what might otherwise seem to
be a cold and heartless world."