Product Description
For all the thousands of books that have been written about religion, few until this one have attempted to examine it scientifically: to ask why—and how—it has shaped so many lives so strongly. Is religion a product of blind evolutionary instinct or rational choice? Is it truly the best way to live a moral life? Ranging through biology, history, and psychology, Daniel C. Dennett charts religion’s evolution from "wild" folk belief to "domesticated" dogma. Not an antireligious screed but an unblinking look beneath the veil of orthodoxy, Breaking the Spell will be read and debated by believers and skeptics alike.
|
|
 "A man ought to know his limitations..." * ( kwalters@gettysburg.edu )
I first read Dennett's Breaking the Spell two years ago, when it first appeared. Since then, I've re-read the whole thing once more, and bits of it several times. I did so under the suspicion that I must've missed something. As a professional philosopher who's taught at the college level for a quarter-century, I know that when an argument comes across as vapid or padded, it ought to be checked several times to make sure a crucial subtlety hasn't been overlooked. But I've come to the conclusion that there's not much to Dennett's book. It has its moments, but they're tediously hard to find in a book that could've easily been cut by at least half.
Dennett, of course, is one of the gang of four--other members are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens--dubbed by "Wired" magazine the "New Atheists." Their brand of atheism is characterized by a militant criticism of all religious beliefs, an uncompromising refusal to distinguish between fundamentalist fringe and moderate religion, a reductionistic reliance on science--especially evolution theory--as foundational, and a rather surprising innocence of the philosophical (much less theological) literature on the God debate. Dennett, the professional philosopher of the lot, sounds so much like Dawkins that one can scarcely tell them apart at times.
Breaking the Spell goes over claims that are now familiar: religion is an evolutionary artifact that may've once had value but isn't necessary any longer. It's nothing more than a toxic meme (Dennett overworks the meme metaphor even more than Dawkins) that refers to no transcendent reality but does a great deal of harm. Thinkers who haven't been infected with the meme are better able to evaluate religion than those who have been infected by it. So-called moderate religionists grant legitimacy to their militant co-believers, and share moral responsibility with them.
Now, all of these claims may be perfectly true. The problem is that Dennett doesn't really argue for them so much as state them in a manner that's so wordy and rambling that one suspects he may've dictated rather than written Breaking the Spell. Let me offer a representative example: his treatment of morality and religion in Chapter 10.
One would've suspected that Dennett would've responded to standard arguments that argue for a necessary connection between religion and morality--e.g., divine command theory or natural law theory--or that he would've focused on the so-called problem of evil (how can a good and powerful God allow innocent suffering?). But instead, quite amazingly, he claims that religion grounds morality on either the authority of religious spokespersons (this is as close as he comes to divine command theory) or the fear of hell and the hope of paradise. In other words, he ignores the long-standing philosophical debate to focus on a Sunday School straw man. And what can be said of Chapter 10 can be said of most of the entire book. It's not surprising that a quick perusal of the book's index and bibliography reveals nearly none of the relevant literature. Dennett, of course, might reply (and has done so elsewhere) that there's nothing in the traditional literature worth taking seriously and that he wants to break fresh ground. Fair enough. But surely he must offer an argument for the first claim and live up to the second.
It's frustrating enough that a philosopher with Dennett's reputation (because he really has done interesting work in philosophy of mind) should publish such a shoddy work. But the frustration level rises when one considers that Dennett either truly doesn't know the general outlines of the debate (much less the finer points) or that he's patronising his readers by presuming that they won't be able to handle a treatise that offers substantive argumentation.
There are so many better texts to read. I'd recomment Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Analysis or the volume he edited, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Hume's Dialogues, Mill's Three Essays, Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity, Plato's Euthyphro: any of these would also be good places to start. But the New Atheists? Not so much.
____
* From The Gospel of Dirty Harry ("Magnum Force")
|
 Interesting Book and Telling Reviews ( apost8 )
Daniel Dennett in his book "Breaking the Spell" breaks with most of his atheist colleagues, leaving behind the "shock and awe" approach of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but tries to draw in both believers and non-believers for a tame, rational discussion about religion and other superstititions and how they evolved. Dennett, admits that he is speculating on several counts, and but seems to ask the question, "can we even have this discussion?"
The Title "Breaking the Spell" is intended as a proposal to break the taboo we have in our society about discussing religion rationally from a scientific perspective. Dennett proceeds, naively I think, to discuss various scientific explanations for religion and discusses their qualities and drawbacks.
Though the book is very thoughtful and full of many insights, I think most true-believers will treat the book as a sort of "trojan horse" to allow rational discussion about irrational superstititions. I don't know how many of Dennett's target audience will ultimately ask to drop the drawbridge and accept Dennett's offer.
Feeling protected by their fortress of faith and supported by the mutual delusion of the other soldiers manning the fort, true-believers will probably feel they can endure the artillery assault of reason leveled by Dawkins and Hitchens as well as deal with Harris's efforts to mine their foundation. I doubt the book will go anywhere within the religious community. However it creates an interesting starting point for those who do wish to discuss religion as a natural phenomenom and to understand it. Like Michael Shermer's "Why We Believe", it will probably go down as an insightful glimpse into religion, but won't accomplish it's desired objective. Many of the reviews sort of bear that out (notwithstanding the number of Christian knuckleheads who found this book associated with Dawkin's and Harris's books and immediately attacked it without reading it).
Even so, I highly recommend this book.
|
 The Underlying Theme is Policy and Politics
This is the first book that I have read by Mr. Dennett and let me say at the outset that I am thankful that there are authors like him that are willing to take the time to "circle" a subject and view it from several different scientific, sociological and anthropological perspectives. This book is not a harsh criticism of religion but an attempt, as I understand it, to foster a dialogue in order to determine what policies, if any, should be carried out in the future to curb potential threats from religious fanatics. I for one do not wish to live under a theocracy; I do not want to be told what to think - so here is where I must voice my concern regarding Mr. Dennett's references to making "policy" decisions: someone other than the individual or family would be making the call - making a value judgment for them. What is harmful, what is good and what is bad with regards to religion would all be decided by others. Policies and laws already exist - harmful behaviors have consequences. Where would the new "policies" end? Religion is not what I would call a "natural phenomenon" but only one of the many behavioral traits of the natural phenomenon known as the human animal. As I see it, the human mind is the last refuge - the place where one can dream and reflect, pray or meditate without outside interference - I think this is why there is such a reluctance by many (as Mr. Dennett notes)to even begin to try to understand why people believe what they believe.
|
 A great treat from Dennett ( externalist )
This is a superb book about religion from Dennett, who has attained a renown as a philosopher of mind and cognitive science. He brings the tools from those disciplines to the subject of religion; in particular, he makes use of the concept of the "intentional stance" that we naturally take towards objects, both animate and inanimate. Dennett's book is a part of the very recent trend to scrutinize religion by conceptual tools taken from cognitive psychology, anthropology and evolutionary biology -- as a natural phenomnon like any other. This is in keeping with an argument from Dennett's earlier book, DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA, to the effect that Darwin's idea of natural selection is a "universal acid". That is to say, the idea of natural selection is no narrow scientific concept, but a general scientific approach that is applicable "all the way up" as well as "all the way down". There is no area of research that could be immune to it. Hence, this approach must be applicable to the putatively "sacred" subject of religion as well.
A note on Dennett's target audience: Dennett hopes his books will be read, among others, by non-fanatical Christians, whom he would like to convince that a naturalistic study of religion need not necessarily rob religion of its charm. In other words, the spell need not necessarily be broken, or rather, we will not know until we will have done our homework. Two remarks. First, I believe Dennett is actually pretty sure that the spell will be broken. Second, I think he hopes in vain that many of his Christian co-patriots are going to bother with his book. BREAKING THE SPELL is going to be read primarily by secular academics like me, so Dennett is preaching to the converted.
|
 Science as an Incantation
Dennett talks up science here but there is little evidence that cognitive psychology provides a basis for a scientific investigation of religion. Cognitive psychology (as opposed to cognitive neuroscience) has no stable results as of yet but the program Dennett advocates depends upon cognitive psychology providing a basis for theologically orientated research. Questioning the obscure via the obscure is hardly enlightening. Science here is used as an incantation rather than as providing a basis for a viable research program.
|
|
View Larger
Add to Cart 
