In: Psychology
Dawkins argues that religion is evil is he right or wrong? Is he fair to religion?
While it is conceivable to discover proof supporting the two sides of the discussion, it is regardless evident that numerous specialists accept that religion advances both physical and mental wellbeing. For some strict individuals, confidence gives a wellspring of expectation and friendship with similarly invested devotees. Moreover, Mr. Dawkins' conviction that religion is one of the world's incredible evils is likewise false. Truly, evil things have been done for the sake of religion. In any case, as John Tures reports in Pacific Standard, by far most of wars since 1648 (when the Peace of Westphalia was marked) were because of intensity and land snatches and system change, not religion.
Information doesn't bolster his conviction that religion is evil and perilous, so he repeats his situation by asserting that religion is a risky "name." That's outlandish. In addition, if people weren't keen on influence and cash, there would be no war.
He is not at all fair to religions nor he could prove the basis
of his claims that how religion causes evil deeds .
Thanks and plzz don’t forget to hit thumbs up:)...