Christ Church High Street, Lye, Stourbridge, West Mids, UK. DY9 8LF

Trinity 7 (Year C): "Is Religion Dangerous?": Rev Dr Chris Kent

Ephesians 2: 11 - 22
Matthew 5: 43 - 48

(1) In our series on current issues, today we ask: "Is religion dangerous?" For years, atheists and sceptics have questioned the truth claims of particularly the Christian religion. They claim that religious folk are deluded, and should exchange superstition for rational thinking. Marx saw religion propping up oppressive social orders; Nietzsche saw it as a crutch for the weak-minded. Both spawned atheistic movements that did their utmost to destroy religion: Communist and Nazi regimes raised extermination to industrial levels... So, atheism can be dangerous, too!

(2) Recent verbal attacks on religion claim that it is positively harmful; humanity needs to be liberated from its grip, set free from the chains of religious institutions. Atheism has many highly articulate champions, such as Richard Dawkins. He has done a lot to make science approachable to the non-scientist. But he has also attacked religion, in several books, and in a recent BBC documentary. His latest book, "The God Delusion", is a best-seller. Dawkins thinks religion is muddled and should be replaced by science; religion does more harm than good; it is, in short, "the root of all evil" - the title of his documentary. Religion should be banished from the face of the earth; then we can live in peace.

(3) But how convincing are these arguments? Does religion do more harm than good? Is it really dangerous? Would the world be a better place without it?

(4) This morning, I have the job of answering "the case against religion" in 15 to 20 minutes. Because, in that time, I can't do full justice to such a big topic, for a more complete treatment, I would recommend to you two books that counter the challenge: "Is Religion Dangerous?" by Keith Ward and "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath with Joanna Collicutt McGrath. I shall mostly focus on the Christian faith, partly because I don't feel qualified to speak on behalf of other religions, partly because they have members well able to answer for themselves.

(5) Roughly speaking, the atheist "case against religion", as dangerous and harmful, covers the following broad claims, which I'll consider in turn:

Religion leads to division, suspicion and violence - physical harm
Religion is immoral - it represses and oppresses people
Religion is irrational and a danger to truth - a form of intellectual harm
Religion is harmful to well-being

(6) First of all, the claim that religion promotes division into "us" and "them", leading to violence against "them". History shows a host of "religious wars" between Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Muslim, Muslim and Hindu; pogroms against the Jews in Christendom. Today, we might picture the radical Muslim suicide bomber, prepared to kill anyone, including civilians, believing that he or she is about to die in the cause of Allah, and so will pass directly to paradise. But we can also find those claiming to be Christians using biblical stories and texts to justify apartheid in South Africa and white supremacy in the U.S.A. The evidence is a serious indictment of religion that we must address.

(7) Three early points need to be made in response: first, all religions do not say the same things, so criticism of one religion need not apply to another; second, we must ask what it is about a particular religion's beliefs and practices that are dangerous and harmful, and in themselves lead to violence; and, third, we should point out that followers of any point of view, be it religious, political, or whatever, don't always behave as their beliefs would tell them; they may be driven by other motives. Any human organisation is corruptible, and can behave in ways opposed to its basic principles. Take liberal democracy: in Germany, a certain Adolf Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor. So, if we consider the radical Muslim suicide bomber, we might identify verses in the Qur'an that could be interpreted as supporting the bomber's plans. That is a matter that should be left to Muslims to defend. However, there are other Qur'anic texts, such as those describing God as "the Compassionate, the Merciful", which prohibit fighting civilians and oppose indiscriminate suicide bombing; that was brought out quite clearly by our Muslim colleagues in the Lye Christian / Muslim dialogue group recently. They would say that the suicide bomber's beliefs were corrupted. So, a religion's central beliefs must also be considered in answering these questions.

(8) So, does the Christian faith teach us to be violent and divisive? Many would see the heart of Jesus' ethical teaching in his "sermon on the mount", reported in Matthew's and Luke's gospels. "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" is hardly incitement to persecution and violence, is it? Likewise, as they reflected on how Jesus lived and what he did, the New Testament writers saw Jesus as dying for the whole of humanity, in order to destroy what the Apostle Paul called, in Ephesians, "the dividing wall of hostility". Jesus and the New Testament Christians invited all social and ethnic groups into the kingdom of God; they didn't try to force them, nor did they revile those who refused the invitation...

(9) So, what about the religious wars, the Inquisition, the burning of witches and heretics? The Christian faith would have been used to justify these, possibly with reference to Bible passages referring to the wrath and judgment of God or the possession of the land of Canaan. But, why did people ignore the teaching of Jesus on peace and love, and his life's example, in favour of passages that referred to specific conditions long since past and superseded by the gospel? Who were they to think that they could act as the agents of the wrath of God? Is it not likely that other motives, such as political ambitions, greed, or the desire for power were the main driving forces, and religion was a convenient marker of identity a political leader could use to persuade the community to act in the desired way? The Christian religion should be a powerful force for peace and good will in the world; because that's what it teaches. However, it and the Church can be, and have been used to promote the opposite. We should be on constant guard to prevent that.

(10) We can use similar arguments in answer to the second criticism, that religion is immoral, because its morality is based on an unthinking acceptance of the rules of some holy book such as the Bible. These rules are seen as outmoded and oppressive: for example, in the treatment of women and homosexuals. These are serious allegations that we should look at carefully to see if they are justified.

(11) The first thing I would want to say on behalf of the Christian faith is that Christian morality, like Christian faith, is not based primarily on keeping a set of rules. Our moral standards and behaviour are based on the example and teaching of Jesus and our ongoing relationship with him. Our response is meant to be one of love and gratitude to him for all he's done for us, as well as obedience to the will of God. Sure, we are guided authoritatively in how to understand that will, through the writings of both the New and Old Testaments, but in each generation, the church has the task of trying to apply the principles involved in the Bible to the cultures and understandings of our time. This is far from unthinking acceptance of rules, and involves discussion and argument; we don't always agree on the details, and we don't always get things right. In the case of the place of women, I suspect that too often we have let cultural perspectives get in the way of one or other of the biblical principles of equality and complementarity of the genders. In the debate over homosexual relations, we've been guilty at times of either forgetting God's love and acceptance of all or his warning that certain types of behaviour are destructive. But the biblical principles and the example of Jesus remain as our guide and the foundation of our morality. In contrast, does atheism offer any reliable foundation for morality at all? Why should I concern myself with what is good, if there is no God to whom I must give account? And anyway, even the terms, "right" and "wrong" are meaningless without God. To my mind, to be an atheist is a morally more dangerous thing than being a Christian.

(12) Now, let's look briefly at the third atheistic criticism of religion: that it is irrational and a danger to truth. because "it replaces thoughtful concern for the facts with a blind acceptance on authority of absurd beliefs", to quote Keith Ward. But, is it so absurd to believe that the incredibly complex and ordered universe we see around us owes its existence to a Creator, who, in the words of the letter to Hebrews, ".sustains all things by his powerful word."? Was it irrational of Jesus to look around himself and see the loving care of his Father in the way birds can find food and in the beauty of the flowers of the field? Were the Apostle Paul and the psalmist in their right minds to maintain that the physical universe reflects characteristics of God? And, as far as "blind acceptance of absurd beliefs" is concerned, is that what the writer of 1 John has in mind when he tells his readers to ".test the spirits." to tell whether a message is from a true or a false prophet? Reasoning and assessing arguments based upon the evidence available runs right through the prophetic literature of the Old Testament and the writings of the New Testament. and down the centuries, many of the best and most reasonable thinkers have held religious beliefs: people like Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Kant and Descartes were intellectual giants in their time.

(13) And is it any more reasonable to maintain, as some do, that the only reasonable beliefs are those that can be proved by science? As that statement cannot be proved by scientific observation, it must be as much a statement of belief as the one we make when we say the creed: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty." I would go further than that, and claim that a belief in the existence of God and his involvement in the universe, as in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths, provides a firmer foundation for the rationality of the world, and a greater hope that science is a worthwhile enterprise, than the belief that there is no God, and that reality is "nothing but" whatever we can observe "scientifically". Because, without God in the picture, how can we guarantee that the universe won't suddenly change its rules, and make all our science utter rubbish? Many scientists and engineers, myself included, have taken this point, and find their Christian faith and their science are totally compatible: two examples are Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, and Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University. The Christian faith is deeply rational.

(14) So, I've presented three answers to three claims that "religion is dangerous". I have tried to show that, at any rate, the Christian religion in itself encourages harmony and love, not violence; that it gives us a sound basis for morality; and that it is deeply rational. But, is there much evidence to suggest that, in practice, it's harmful, bad for the health? Quite the contrary: the American psychologist David Myers, the Oxford psychologist Michael Argyle, and many others, have conducted surveys that show that those for whom religion is important are likely to live longer and be happier, healthier, less prone to drugs abuse, and possess greater self esteem than those who follow no religion. When we add to that the vast amount of work done in the past and present by the Church and religious agencies on relief, hospital work and healthcare, education and development, caring for the poor and orphans, and a host of other things inspired by the example of Christ, surely religion is a powerful force for good, not harm. But, because it can give rise to strong feelings and emotions and strongly-held opinions, it is vulnerable to takeover by other forces, if we do not constantly "look to Jesus". So, is religion dangerous? I would say, "Not in itself", but handle it with care.