The first chapter of Charles Kimball's most recent book, When Religion Becomes Evil, asks "is religion the problem?" One might wonder what exactly this problem is. Through this article Kimball explains the case for and against religion, with respect to its effects on an individual. For example, some people believe that religion causes people to act in an evil and destructive way. This belief was undoubtedly reinforced by the September 11 terrorist attacks, committed by people of a religion that seems to glorify suicide bombers. However, other people maintain that religion is necessary and should help solve the problem, not cause it.
             This question brings up the inherent difficulty in defining religion. Religion is a "complex" and "multidimensional" concept, one with which our "current associations ... are changing." Often, in order to define religion, one must study various religions in depth. Accordingly, after September 11, 2001, many news stations and authors attempted to educate the public about the terrorists' religion and why they might have committed such horrible crimes. However, Kimball writes that "an hour or two is hardly enough time to do justice to the breadth and depth and richness of a religious tradition." He goes on to state that "the more one knows, the less sharply one can draw lines and define the different religions as separate and discrete."
             So, is religion the problem? Kimball doesn't take a side on this issue, but rather states that both sides are right–"in part." It is true that religion has been a major cause of war in both ancient and recent history, but the people are at fault as well, since they stubbornly refuse to consider another point of view. On the other hand, "scientism", the rejection of anything remotely religious, is just as faulty when it causes people to have a very narrow p...