Why Evil won't go Away: A Philosophical Analysis of the Relationship between Religions, Ideologies and Evil

Anne Leona Cesarine Runehov

Why Evil won't go Away: A Philosophical Analysis of the Relationship between Religions, Ideologies and Evil

Anne Leona Cesarine Runehov

TEO Afdeling for systematisk teologi

Abstract

The aim of the present article is to critically analyse Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' view on the relationship between religion and evil and to argue that the problem of evil is far more complex than they want us to believe. I will argue that attention needs to be paid to different types of evil, namely, (1) natural evil; (2) pure accidental moral evil; (3) belief-based accidental moral evil; (4) active but non-responsible moral evil and (5) active and responsible moral evil. Furthermore, I will argue that it is important to take into account the relation between religion, worldviews, religious experiences per se, religious interpretations, religiosity, theology and religious and non-religious ideologies. It will be seen that religion is a very complex issue. It will also become clear that evil related to religions does not differ from evil related to non-religious ideologies. Dawkins' statement that religion systematically causes people to do evil, and Harris' argument that religious faith is the culprit of evil are based on misunderstandings of both evil and religion.

Keywords: Dawkins, Harris, Evil, Relationship, Religion, Theology, Ideologies, faith and belief.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
ISSN	0020-7047
Status	Afsendt - 2008

Citationsformater

@article{06f95410ff1d11dcbee902004c4f4f50,

title = "Why Evil won't go Away: A Philosophical Analysis of the Relationship between Religions, Ideologies and Evil",

abstract = "The aim of the present article is to critically analyse Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' view on the relationship between religion and evil and to argue that the problem of evil is far more complex than they want us to believe. I will argue that attention needs to be paid to different types of evil, namely, (1) natural evil; (2) pure accidental moral evil; (3) belief-based accidental moral evil; (4) active but non-responsible moral evil and (5) active and responsible moral evil. Furthermore, I will argue that it is important to take into account the relation between religion, worldviews, religious experiences per se, religious interpretations, religiosity, theology and religious and non-religious ideologies. It will be seen that religion is a very complex issue. It will also become clear that evil related to religions does not differ from evil related to non-religious ideologies. Dawkins' statement that religion systematically causes people to do evil, and Harris' argument that religious faith is the culprit of evil are based on misunderstandings of both evil and religion. Keywords: Dawkins, Harris, Evil, Relationship, Religion, Theology, Ideologies, faith and belief.",

author = "Runehov, {Anne Leona Cesarine}",

year = "2008",

language = "English",

journal = "International Journal for Philosophy of Religion",

issn = "0020-7047",

publisher = "Springer",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why Evil won't go Away

T2 - A Philosophical Analysis of the Relationship between Religions, Ideologies and Evil

AU - Runehov, Anne Leona Cesarine

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - The aim of the present article is to critically analyse Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' view on the relationship between religion and evil and to argue that the problem of evil is far more complex than they want us to believe. I will argue that attention needs to be paid to different types of evil, namely, (1) natural evil; (2) pure accidental moral evil; (3) belief-based accidental moral evil; (4) active but non-responsible moral evil and (5) active and responsible moral evil. Furthermore, I will argue that it is important to take into account the relation between religion, worldviews, religious experiences per se, religious interpretations, religiosity, theology and religious and non-religious ideologies. It will be seen that religion is a very complex issue. It will also become clear that evil related to religions does not differ from evil related to non-religious ideologies. Dawkins' statement that religion systematically causes people to do evil, and Harris' argument that religious faith is the culprit of evil are based on misunderstandings of both evil and religion. Keywords: Dawkins, Harris, Evil, Relationship, Religion, Theology, Ideologies, faith and belief.

AB - The aim of the present article is to critically analyse Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' view on the relationship between religion and evil and to argue that the problem of evil is far more complex than they want us to believe. I will argue that attention needs to be paid to different types of evil, namely, (1) natural evil; (2) pure accidental moral evil; (3) belief-based accidental moral evil; (4) active but non-responsible moral evil and (5) active and responsible moral evil. Furthermore, I will argue that it is important to take into account the relation between religion, worldviews, religious experiences per se, religious interpretations, religiosity, theology and religious and non-religious ideologies. It will be seen that religion is a very complex issue. It will also become clear that evil related to religions does not differ from evil related to non-religious ideologies. Dawkins' statement that religion systematically causes people to do evil, and Harris' argument that religious faith is the culprit of evil are based on misunderstandings of both evil and religion. Keywords: Dawkins, Harris, Evil, Relationship, Religion, Theology, Ideologies, faith and belief.

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0020-7047

JO - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

JF - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

ER -