Alex O'Connor on Religion and societal harm
O'Connor acknowledges religion's harms while resisting the claim that religion is uniquely or inevitably destructive.
O'Connor's position on religion and societal harm is more measured than that of the New Atheists. He acknowledges the documented harms — the suppression of scientific inquiry, the persecution of minorities, the protection of abusers by religious institutions — but he resists the sweeping claim that religion poisons everything. His approach is empirical rather than polemical: what does the evidence actually show?
He has noted that many of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century were committed by explicitly secular regimes — Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot — and that the relationship between religious belief and societal outcomes is more complex than either side typically acknowledges. Secular democracies with low religiosity tend to have better social outcomes, but the causal direction is unclear: prosperity may cause secularisation rather than the reverse.
O'Connor's nuanced position reflects his broader philosophical temperament. He is genuinely interested in understanding religion as a human phenomenon, not merely condemning it. This makes him more effective in conversation with believers but occasionally frustrates the more combative elements of the atheist community.
“I think religion has done enormous harm. I also think the claim that it has done nothing but harm is obviously false. The interesting question is what the net effect is, and that requires evidence, not slogans.”