Show Book List  | More books by Daniel C Dennett

Reviews from Amazon
Amazon.com (0143038338) 175 reviews
Amazon.co.uk (0713997893) 25 reviews
Amazon.co.uk (0143038338) 3 reviews
Amazon.ca (0143038338) 7 reviews
A selection of these reviews is given below

Reviews elsewhere on the web:
Majikthise
complete-review.com
Kenan Malik
Daylight Atheism
Anthony Campbell
Madeleine Bunting

Daniel C Dennett

Breaking the Spell

C.S. Lewis said 'You cannot go on explaining away for ever', i.e. there has to be something at the root of what we believe. In Breaking the Spell Daniel Dennett seems to have turned this argument back on itself, saying in effect, OK if that's the case then it won't harm for us to go on trying to explain things such as religion. I can't help thinking that he's trying to pull a fast one myself (if you can use the word 'fast' in relation to Dennett's long books). But if you're interested in the status of religion then it's definitely worth taking a look at this book.

I would say however that although the stated aim of the book is to justify the scientific examination of religion, Dennett does seem to be trying to do other things as well. One is to improve the status of atheists (or 'brights') in the USA, and another is to impress on the more moderate members of religions that they have a responsibility to keep the more extreme factions in check. This means that there is less space to devote to the central argument. Dennett describes the work of previous writers who have supported this argument, but there doesn't seem to be much mention of their critics (who I'm sure must exist). I found this rather surprising, as a hallmark of Dennett's books on consciousness is detailed replies to critics of his ideas

Amazon.com info
Paperback 464 pages  
ISBN: 0143038338
Salesrank: 7560
Weight:0.85 lbs
Published: 2007 Penguin (Non-Classics)
Amazon price $11.56
Marketplace:New from $7.27:Used from $4.11
Buy from Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk info
Hardcover 464 pages  
ISBN: 0713997893
Salesrank: 307290
Weight:1.81 lbs
Published: 2006 Allen Lane
Marketplace::Used from £12.80
Buy from Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.ca info
Paperback 464 pages  
ISBN: 0143038338
Salesrank: 5157
Weight:0.85 lbs
Published: 2007 Penguin Paperbacks
Amazon price CDN$ 13.51
Marketplace:New from CDN$ 11.28:Used from CDN$ 16.32
Buy from Amazon.ca






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.
 
Expansive and thorough, but also irritatingly self-aware ****
I have now read all the major "New Atheist" authors and their relevant books (Harris/"The End of Faith", "Letter to a Christian Nation"; Dawkins/"The God Delusion"; Hitchens/"God Is Not Great") and can say that Dennett's book probably offers the most expansive analysis of the problem of religion in our society today. I don't mean to say it's better than the others, but there is certainly something more in-depth about the approach than the other books. For example, whereas Hitchens' book is more of a casual discussion of what he feels is wrong with religion, Dennett's book is a step-by-step process of investigation into why people believe what they believe, how it came that they believe it, etc.

I assume this approach is heavily informed by the fact that Dennett, unlike the other three authors, is a philosopher, and so is inclined to be extremely analytical of every claim he or anyone else makes. But therein lies the problem with the book as well. I enjoyed Hitchens' approach of flat-out telling us what he felt about religion and why it is a problem. Dennett, on the other hand, talks in circles around *every* point he makes (if you can even say he makes a point, because rather than simply stating an opinion as the other authors do, he proposes ideas in a way that seems like he's not laying claim to anything he's saying). For example, instead of saying something like "The belief in God is a superstition and/or delusion that remains within us from previous centuries," he will say something like "What I'd like to suggest is that belief in God may simply be an illusion that was passed down through generations, but before we can make this claim we need to stop and think about the issues that...." etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a careful approach to a problem such that you don't make too many assumptions too soon, but throughout the *entire* book Dennett writes like this. It is such a classical "philospher" approach that it was almost funny, but I couldn't help but be frustrated with much of it because I simply wanted to hear some opinions and ideas from him, not a constant tap dance around the issues so that he didn't have to commit himself to an opinion.

Having said that, I still recommend the book for its very broad scope and in-depth questioning of just about every issue related to the belief in God and the adherence to religion. It's certainly a different approach than the other three authors took, but it's just as interesting, if not as in-your-face atheistic.
 
Maestro Dennett **
In Breaking the Spell, Daniel C. Dennett, the widely known professor of philosophy at Tufts University, and co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, argues for the exposure of religion to empirical scrutiny. Dennett leads us on an evolutionary account of human religion, which finds religion to be an evolutionary artifact that may have once had value but is not necessary any longer. To Dennett, it is nothing more than a toxic concept or "meme" that refers to no transcendent reality and does a great deal of harm. Dennett devotes himself to breaking through the prejudice (the "Spell") against scientifically plausible but unverifiable Darwinian explanations of religion. He proposes further scientific investigations, yet without sufficient research, suggests prescriptive public policy reforms to isolate religion from society. David Hume's old project of a natural history or religion has been re-booted and infused with draughts of authoritarianism.

The subject matter is certainly sensible but page after page unfolds and the author is still pleading for the need to subject religions to some long-delayed scrutiny. After one hundred pages, we have yet to get to the meat of the matter and Dennett has not commenced his argument in earnest. His hypothesis could have been stated in one phrase: "We need to do research into why people believe." It does not help that goes off on a tangent and proclaims that skeptics will be called "brights" and that this term should not be offensive to those who are not "bright." It is like me saying my schoolmates are going to be called "normal," not that you are abnormal if you do not have the same beliefs as me (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). It is hardly a way to build bridges with strangers.

Dennett's actual narrative begins by considering the evolutionary advantages of the "intentional stance" - the ability to presume agency in one's surroundings. From this assumption, he deduces the origins of primitive animism and the development of the earliest religious memes (such as the personification of natural forces.) He then imagines how these vague apprehensions of the supernatural mutated - by associating themselves with the tendency of children to exaggerate the powers of their parents - into the idea of omniscient and omnipotent ancestor gods and how this idea was subsequently fortified by the invention of divination. This "god" meme increased the survival of the believers from severe illnesses by making them more susceptible to hypnotic suggestion from shamans and their ministrations would be more likely to take effect. Dennett also ponders the development of those rituals by which religious memes scaffold themselves in more-enduring social structures, and he reflects on the phenomena of mass hypnosis and hysteria, which help to explain how the contagion of religion spreads. He considers the transformation of folk religion into organized religion, especially as agriculture and urban society developed, as well as the alliances struck between organized religion and political power. Along the way, he contemplates how religions deepen their complexity, and how believers begin to take responsibilities for the memes that shape them, by producing ever more sophisticated rationales for their beliefs. And he describes the way in which "belief in belief"--a desire to believe, or a sense that belief is good, rather than actual conviction--becomes one of the most effective techniques for religious memes to render themselves immune to the antibodies of doubt. Near the end of these reflections, Dennett feels confident enough to assert that he has just successfully led his readers on a "nonmiraculous and matter-of-fact stroll" from the blind machinery of nature up to humanity's passionate fidelity to its most exalted ideas. He has not, obviously. His story is a matter not of facts but of conjectures and intuitions, strung together on tenuous strands of memetic theory. Still, it is as good a story as any.

The profound problem inherent in this story is that it is a sublimely pointless book for five quite uncomplicated reasons. First, it proposes a "science of religion" that is not scientific at all. Second, the pseudo-science employed never investigates religion. Third, even if Dennett's theory of natural religion could be shown to be largely correct, not only would it fail to challenge belief, it would merely re-enforce a view of "religion" already held by most traditions of faith. Fourth, Dennett's pseudo-science has the unintended consequence of a political weapon to silence dissenters. Fifth, the question of God's existence is completely viable and yet Dennett recommends the annihilation of such a fact statement.

Please visit my website, Delight In Him, for more.
 
Getting At The Roots of Religion *****
Of all the so called New Atheist books that have been released in the past few years, Breaking the Spell is by far the one of the most intensely thought provoking and comprehensive. Dr. Dennet explains the origins of religious thought and behavior in a way that few could. In the process the reader is taken on a voyage back into time, to explore the roles religion might have played in the lives of our ancestors. This book is not about attempting to persuade people to abandon their faith, it is an accessible philosophical inquiry that attempts to explain one of mankind's most pervasive phenomena; religion.


 
Explaining Religion: From Obsessional Neurosis to a Peacock's Tail *****
Explaining religion from the natural and psychosocial history of mankind is a hanging question ever since Hume assumed in 1757 that common religious ideas might bei closer to sick men's dreams and the boisterous ideas of apes in the shape of men than to any serious rational statement. Since then various concepts have been presented. In 1927 Freud asked in "The Future of an Illusion" what it might be that gets religious teachings an effectiveness independent of rational acceptance. In short his answer was: wishful thinking and fulfilling wishes via roundabout. These old thoughts in the tradition of the Enlightenment stay with us telling part of the truth. The philosophical status of all these explanatory efforts (and of counterefforts to undermine them) was analyzed thoroughly and unsurpassed by Mackie in "The Miracle of Theism" in 1982. From Darwin onwards often costly and wasteful, or seemingly wasteful, religious rituals and cults caught the eye of evolutionary biologists - today more than ever. Daniel Dennett sums up their ideas (see especially p. 82 - 92) and that alone is worth reading the book and can spare you quite a load of others (if you accept losses in detail). A lot of all that is plausible though speculative to a lamentable degree. Nobody really knows which significance we should ascribe to the various pieces in the puzzle of explanation. But Dennett uses this discussion to undermine religious thinking and religious claims of indispensability in a corteous and gentle manner which nevertheless gets more and more insisting as the book continues. He questions religious education and places his hope on children taught independent thinking who might then in reverse lead their parents to abandon obsolete religious world views. Thus our culture might develop in a positive way. Let's hope Dennett will be right. He himself does a good deal to bring it about.
 
Dennett misses the forest for the trees ***
I watched several Dennett presentations on YouTube and was eager to find out more about his views. "Breaking the Spell" turned out to be one of the worst books I have ever read.

"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" said Marcus T. Cicero. Dennett must have been in a rush to meet a deadline. One reviewer called him "circumlocutious." At half the pages the book would have been twice as readable. But style, or the lack of it, are not the worst offenders.

Breaking the Spell is supposed to be about the scientific study of religion. The first part, "Opening Pandora's Box" is unnecessarily defensive. Dennett worries about the damage that revealing the truth about religion might cause to its believers. This fallacy is similar to banning guns because they kill people. No, it's not guns that kill, it's people using them that do. Same with religion, it's the clergy that does the harm using religion as their tool.

Later in Part I Dennett latches on to "Cui bono?" (Latin, to whose advantage?) to "prove" that religion is a natural phenomenon that provides benefits for its users. For anyone who believes in Darwinian selection, this should be self evident. Later he admits that the only thing he found out was that he found very little: "More research is required" he states in Part III. It would have been wise to wait for that research before writing this book.

An atheist preacher

It appears that the herding instinct is universal, if afflicts even "Brights" and atheists. Be that as it may, I wonder who gave Dennett the right to speak in the name of people he has not even met and who didn't even elect him. Is he the self appointed High Priest of Brights? I quote: "We brights are quite aware of all the good that religions accomplish, but we prefer to channel our charity and good deeds though secular organizations..." I certainly don't believe that religions produce any net positive for humanity, some people benefit but many suffer from it. Also, not everyone believes in altruism, Ayn Rand denounced it as evil. If it had been just a general statement, I would have let it pass but Dennett insists on preaching to the Brights, how they should do their charity, I quote: "This is to keep our hands clean, but that is not enough--any more than it is enough for moderate Christians to avoid giving funds to anti-Semitic organizations within Christianity, or for moderate Jews to restrict their charity to organizations that are working to secure peaceful coexistence for Palestinians and Israelis. That is a start, but there is more work to be done... " Not only is he "Breaking the Spell" he is preaching which is completely out of line, specially for an atheist.

Religion is a form of government

I marked several more passages that raised my hackles in the chapter on "Religion and Morality" but this review is also getting to be too long so let me focus on Dennett's biggest miss, he never saw the forest for the trees. Dennett uses the reductionist methods of scientific inquiry to investigate religion and he discovers its various elements but he misses the evolving uses to which religion is put. While gods and religion evolved quite naturally, religion was highjacked by a cadre of self appointed clerics and turned into a system of autocratic government. Consider the Ten Commandments. Moses is leading an unruly bunch of Jews from Egypt to the promised land. They are getting out of hand, they are making idols, how to get them back in line? Moses didn't have a police force or a riot squad so he had to be creative. He created one of the world's most enduring charades. He went up a mountain and came back with a new rule book and a fantastic story, god, in a burning bush, revealed it all to him. It worked! It would with a superstitious bunch of ignorant people. The modern result is a theocratic Israel as well as Islamic theocracies in several countries. Christianity was the first western religion to propose the separation of church and state. Jesus said: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Unfortunately, his followers, the popes in the Dark and Middle Ages, preferred theocracy and the Vatican is the last vestige of this form of Christian government.

Until we recognize religion for what it is, a competing system of government, we will never be at peace. Religion should not be given preferential tax treatment. It should have no more prerogatives than a bridge or golf country club if the separation of these two forms of government, secular and spiritual, is to be effective. Dennett entirely misses this issue. He gets bogged down in the reductionist minutiae and misses the emergent reality of religion as a system of government hijacked by preachers for their own ends.
 
You can't be serious! *
You can't be serious Mr Dennett, that you expect us to take stuff like this as a serious intellectual exercise!
 
Disappointing **
Dennett claims to be a 'philosopher'. He quotes many ideas from others, but adds few of his own. Polemic is no substitute for scientific neutrality. I missed the insights of Dawkins who does these things better.
 
Well, I read it twice *****
This is a really thorough, mature and well reasoned book. It's academically solid, but eminently accessible to anyone who isn't irredeemably irrational. I read it through twice and enjoyed it more the second time - it's rich in facts, anecdotes and though-provoking ideas.

Since it's an extended argument in favour of a scientific approach to religion, some scientific literacy is probably helpful (but not essential) when reading it. Although Dennett targets religion specifically, you will probably finish the book convinced that nothing whatsover should be off-limits to science. I did anyway.

He does go to extreme lengths to accommodate religious sensibilities and avoid giving offence. Initially this might seem overdone, and too apologetic; but it also has the effect of foreclosing many avenues of opposition to his argument.

It's also a great book if you want to follow up any of the ideas - there are several hundred references and detailed notes; and I've used quite a few of them to further my own reading.

And I particularly liked the bit about accordionists. It's really true :-)
 
Growing up in the universe *****
From the start of the first chapter, where you meet the ant who is laboriously climbing up the blade of grass over and over again, you know that this is going to be a rewarding book to read. You will have to read the book yourself to find out what possible benefit this strange behaviour could have for the ant.

This book doesn't just re-work the old, familiar territory. We are over two thirds of the way through before Dennett gives some cursory consideration to the question 'Does God Exist?' This book has an original slant which makes it particularly worth reading. It doesn't just rehash the old arguments for and against the existence of God.

On reading this book, there were two messages which came across for me. One was for the need for good quality research to be done on religion. The other (which will be required if the first is going to happen!) is that religion be opened up to rational enquiry and open and honest debate.

It is difficult to know exactly what is going to offend the sensibilities of the religiously inclined but I don't feel this book can be described (accurately) as a polemic. This is a thoughtful and thought provoking book which deserves to be read by theists and atheists alike.
 
Broke the spell for me.... ***
I've been a Daniel Dennett fan ever since The Mind's Eye, a mind-opening book he co-authored/edited with Douglas Hofstadter. In similar vein, I was enthralled by Kinds of Minds; and Darwin's Dangerous Idea showed just how extensive and versatile a thinker Dennett is.

So I was surprised to be disappointed by Breaking the Spell. Maybe it's because I'm older and wiser, or maybe I was expecting this book to be something that it wasn't, but it just seemed to lack substance. The essential thesis of the book is that religious belief is no sacred cow, and should be open to the same level of scientific and philosophical investigation as any other sphere of human activity. This much could have been said in less than a page; and Dennett is engaging and entertaining in outlining his arguments; but there is little more substance to the book than this.

For a book subtitled "Religion as a natural phenomenon", and promising on the back blurb "a truly original - and comprehensive - explanation for faith", such an explanation was conspicuous by its absence. Perhaps this is an unfair criticism - this book concentrates more on asking questions than answering them - but Lewis Wolpert's 'Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast' would have fit the cover of this book much better.

Although Dennett is a prominent atheist, he speaks as the very soul of reason, with courtesy and respect for theists, and a dispassionate open-mindedness. To his credit, he avoids the scathe and scorn employed by Dawkins, Sam Harris and others. But here and there his agenda slips through, as in the following quote (p24 of the paperback edition):

"This puts MY sacred values to work: I want the resolution to the world's problems to be as democratic and just as possible, and both democracy and justice depend on getting on the table for all to see as much of the truth as possible, bearing in mind that sometimes the truth hurts, and hence should sometimes be left uncovered, out of love for those who would suffer were it revealed."

I read this sentence several times, wondering whether he meant 'covered' instead of 'uncovered'. I decided not, for two reasons: firstly, Dennett is generally very precise about his choice of words, and secondly he claims in his preface to have 'shared drafts of this book with many readers', some of whom would surely have queried this odd statement. This statement appears to say that democracy and justice are sacred enough that they should be imposed on others 'out of love', even when it hurts them - a view not too dissimilar from that of the Inquisition. (All right, sorry, that was harsh - but it is telling that nowhere does Dennett propose subjecting his own 'sacred values' to the same kind of investigation that he proposes for religion, even though there are those who would question the benefits that democracy has brought to the world.)

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed this book, and I agree with most of what Dennett has to say; I recommend it to any reader interested in questions of faith, religion and philosophy. But if you're looking for a book that will provide a Darwinian deconstruction of faith, this is not it; and for all his courteous objectivity, it is clear what Dennett hopes the answer to his investigation will be. I'm still a Daniel Dennett fan, but this book broke the spell for me.
 
DENNET BUILDS ON AN OLD MEME AND APPARENTLY FORGETS HIS EVOLUTION **
Whether many may disagree, Evolutionary theory is the best scientific approach we humans have devised so far in order to comprehend and explain our existence. I also have Dennet's older book, Consciousness Explained, which (although speculative in many points) was much more solidly built on scientific facts. This one, in most part, is not.

I strongly agree with putting religion to scrutiny - especially scientific one. (Fine chance to weed out all the New Age, astrology & crystals mumbo-jumbo claiming a scientific basis). However, the scientific approach cuts both ways: either one accepts its truths or not. Manipulating scientific facts and mixing them with speculations does not lead to solid conclusions.
FACT: over 84% of humans follow some religion (New Scientist, Feb.2009). This can only mean that there is a survival or reproductive advantage in being religious. In other words, Evolution decided that it was advantageous for the survival of humans to be religious. Hence, the predisposition of humans to accept the existence of God.

The proposition of memes (Dawkins, 1976) may be a useful tool in order to approach cultural phenomena as genetic traits.
FACT: although useful, memes never have been proven to be more than a useful abstraction - similar to Freud's id, ego and super-ego, very useful for psychoanalysis but can anyone please point to me the brain locus of the ego?
Nevertheless, Dennet builds almost his entire argumentative structure on this "ideas propagating even by harming their hosts, just like viruses" basis. Very weak under any light. Not to mention that he consciously seems to ignore the fact that they may benefit an equal (at least) number of people. Hence: the "Spell" may not necessarily be the negative thing he implies.

September 11th seems to have precipitated an undiscriminating anti-religious wind sweeping across America. The attackers were all Muslim fanatics (I am sure that the fact that they had to endure CIA-backed authoritative regimes in their home-country had nothing to do with it), so now all religions are bad JuJu.
As usual, leave it to militant intellectuals neo-cons to throw out the baby with the bath-water...
 
Intelligent and compelling *****
US philosopher Daniel Dennett and his British pal, biologist Richard Dawkins, each offer a new book on religion, and it's worth reviewing them together.

Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is a powerful tirade against the excesses of religion, packed with examples both disturbing and hilarious. He argues that even 'moderate' religion cripples the mind, and vigorously unpicks the many claims for its truth and worth. His project is to show the wavering believer that blind faith, far from being a virtue, is an absurd and damaging waste of intellect, and calls for its abandonment in favour of an enlightened and healthy atheism: come on in, the water's fine!

Dennett's "Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon" takes a more measured and rigorous approach. Dennett (though an atheist) seeks not so much to attack religion as to explain it, and to do so without recourse to gods. The spell he wishes to break is the taboo that surrounds the debate, preventing the many and contradictory tenets of religion from being seriously examined.

Though Dawkins' heartfelt call is eloquent and impassioned, some readers may still find his sometimes abrasive tone sufficient excuse to dismiss his thesis. Dennett's book, however, rarely strays from the courteous and builds a careful and cogent argument that is potentially more persuasive - even unassailable. It's an elegant and fascinating read, and it's perhaps a shame that it won't have the same high-profile as Dawkins' fireworks.
 
Dennett's Dangerous Idea *****
Can religion be subject to scientific scrutiny? In this remarkable study, Dennett proposes that not only can religion studied be methodically, but that it should be. His suggestion will be stupefying to some, as he readily admits. Is your mind open to the notion that the vast repository of human values could be carefully examined? Then this book will provide many new paths for you to explore. He openly appeals to a wide audience, starting with his fellow countrymen. Dennett's ability to present complex issues, including those of social importance, in a clear and almost intimate manner should grant this book the wide readership he seeks.

The beginning chapter, "Opening Pandora's Box", reminds us that what was long considered inexplicable or mysterious can be revealed. He anticipates the criticism that "spiritual" things or "faith" aren't qualities that submit to analysis. The task, he acknowledges, is immense, but can be accomplished. Certain elements must be agreed upon, such as the definition of "religion". What we call religion, Dennett, contends, ought to exclude "spiritualism", fanatic devotion to secular items such as ethnic groups or idolizing sports figures. On the other hand religion is a dynamic and variable concept and tight demarcation is neither possible or desirable. Religion, then, is a social system incorporating supernatural agents that can reward or punish. Writers preceding him, such as Robert Atran, Pascal Boyer and Walter Burkert are acknowledged as good starting points. Dennett cites them often as contributors to his thinking. His distant, but highly influential, mentor is William James.

Although Dennett's atheism is well known, this book is anything but a call for the abolition of religion. Quite the reverse. He acknowledges the pervasive place of religion in human society. He asks how that came to be and thoroughly examines the various elements that comprise the makeup of a religion. Beginning with the concept of invisible "agency" as the explanation for unusual or unexpected phenomena, ideas about these agents became memes passed through and accepted by society. "Memes", a concept popularized by Richard Dawkins, are the mental equivalent of biological genes. Memes are ideas that replicate and expand through a population. In the case of religion, Dennett suggests, answers to the mysterious might be offered by society's older and wiser members. When such elders died, their transformation into agents themselves. It was almost inevitable, then, that human-like deities arose to be consulted and advise society on courses of action and behaviour.

Once established, and with such powerful agencies underlying them, religions mounted a defensive barrier against inquiry. This "wall" which ranges in firmness from mild disapproval to vigorous hostility, has prevented science from posing rational questions about religion's tenets. Dennett counters that religion should not be excluded from the range of topics that can be investigated. Language research has demonstrated that something seemingly too amorphous to clarify meaningfully can reveal a wide spectrum of human endeavours. He sets out a number of areas to investigate, such as the distinction between belief in a god and the "belief in belief". The latter is part of the glue of social cohesion and common purpose. Can we learn how that works? Dennett's earlier work on "intentional objects" is invoked to discuss how gods are perceived by believers. What will the deity do in a given circumstance? What must the believer do to condition response? These are all plausible questions for enquiry and Dennett seeks to have them pursued.

His final chapter is an outline of research paths that could be followed to investigate religion. He proposes a theory, which all readers are asked to challenge. He presents many commonly-held practices that are taken for granted, asking for explanations of why they exist and reconsideration of their value or impact. Should children receive religious instruction before they understand the issues? Is it "mental child abuse?". Should the practice be banned or is there another option? For this and other questions, evidence must be compiled and presented, along with countervailing theories, if they can be formulated. The only thing unacceptable is finding the quest itself unacceptable. Religion, Dennett notes, is too important to be beyond inquiry.

This book is rich with questions we should be asking ourselves, if we aren't already. Review them in this excellent call for explanations for an overlooked subject. Dennett knows that enquiry alone will not destroy religion. If it should, then religion's thrall on humanity was false to begin with. Dennett notes that if enquiry results in clarification and honesty, religion would emerge in a healthier condition. Whichever you wish or hope to achieve by investigating religion, it's clear the task must be undertaken. There are endless opportunities for research careers in the topics he lists for further exploration. Read this and find out where you might help take up the challenge.

 
Chewy. ****
Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. While many good points are made, he tends to spend the first half of the book clearing his throat in preparation for the second half. There are many gems of thought found within the pages, but I had to force myself to finish the book as it is a bit of a dry and perhaps tedious read. It is a good addition to the arsenal against the bandwagon of faith, and many may enjoy it, but I have much prefered other works such as:

"Atheism explained" by David Ramsay Steele

"50 Reasons people give for believing in gods" by Guy P. Harrison

"Atheist Universe" by David Mills

"God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens
 
A Very Human Book *****
What to add to the many excellent reviews already posted?

Not long before I read BREAKING THE SPELL I had lunch with a couple of friends who were exercised about the utter irrationality of some of the religious types they knew. They just couldn't "get" what religious belief and affiliation was giving these folks.

After reading BREAKING THE SPELL I felt I "got it." Religion is a "natural phenomena." Irrational belief structures make sense in the right context. And it's the context Daniel Dennett provides, the most important aspect of which is how our brains are put together. (Be sure to read Stephen Pinker's HOW THE BRAIN WORKS too.)

So despite the fact Dennett gets thrown in with the most radical of religion attackers, I believe BREAKING THE SPELL comes across with a far more compassionate approach.

I believe, too, that accepting why human brains "naturally" create folk and organized religions is a better platform for curtailing the many and obvious problems with religion -- especially the institutionalized lack of compassion for others -- than outright antipathy.

I've already sent copies to friends who've been deeply hurt by religion, especially American fundamentalist "Christianity." It's been healing for them.

Dr. Kirtland C Peterson
 
Dennet Builts on an Old Idea and Forgets His Evolution... **
Whether many may disagree, Evolutionary theory is the best scientific approach we humans have devised so far in order to comprehend and explain our existence. I also have Dennet's older book, Consciousness Explained, which (although speculative in many points) was much more solidly built on scientific facts. This one, in most part, is not.

I strongly agree with putting religion to scrutiny - especially scientific one. (Fine chance to weed out all the New Age, astrology & crystals mumbo-jumbo claiming a scientific basis). However, the scientific approach cuts both ways: either one accepts its truths or not. Manipulating scientific facts and mixing them with speculations does not lead to solid conclusions.
FACT: since over 90% of humans follow some religion (Dennet fans please remember that there are more than 5 billion people besides North Americans) this can only mean that there is a survival or reproductive advantage in being religious. In other words, Evolution decided that it was advantageous for humans to be religious.

The proposition of memes (Dawkins, 1976) may be a usefull tool in order to approach cultural phenomena as genetic traits.
FACT: although useful, memes never have been proven to be more than a useful abstraction - similar to Freud's id, ego and super-ego, very useful for psychoanalysis but can anyone please point to me the brain locus of the ego?
Nevertheless, Dennet builds almost his entire argumentative structure on this "ideas propagating even by harming their hosts, just like viruses" basis. Very weak under any light. Not to mention that he consciously seems to ignore the fact that they may benefit an equal (at least) number of people. Hence: the "Spell" may not necessarily be the negative thing he implies.

September 11th seems to have precipitated an undiscriminating untireligious wind sweeping across America. The attackers were all Muslim fanatics (I am sure that the fact that they had to endure CIA-backed authoritative regimes in their home-country had nothing to do with it), so now all religions are bad JuJu.
As usual, leave it to militant intellectuals to throw out the baby with the bath-water...
 
Dennett's Gentle Attack on Religion ****
If you're looking at this review, you've probably already read (or are considering reading) End of Faith by Sam Harris and/or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. All three books state the case for reason and against religious faith. Breaking the Spell, however, takes a much softer approach. Harris and Dawkins do not care who they offend. Dennett tries to be gentle and polite. One would think that is a better approach, but that is not how it works out.

Perhaps Dennett is too gentle, or perhaps this argument is one that has to be made forcefully or not at all. In the end, Dennett's book has no audience. The religious won't read it, and won't be convinced. Harris and Dawkins may simply offend most religious people, but they may also convince a few. Atheists like me will prefer Harris and Dawkins.

In the end, this is probably Dennett's worst book. That is not an insult. Dennett is a brilliant philosopher and a wonderful writer. Consciouness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are two of the finest books ever written.
 
Dennett's delightful, delicate, description of religion. *****
It is relatively easy to take a firm stance and not care about subsequent social divisiveness, while much harder to attempt understanding of the complexity of an issue, what is known and unknown, and discuss one's viewpoint in a manner that allows for, and stimulates, further discussion among rational people. Thus, Dennett uses caution in his investigation and does not propose to have all the answers, but he suggests some useful ways of thinking about how to get them (if it possible). Dennett realizes that there are good spells and bad spells, and at this moment it is hard to tell which one religion might be. There are two main spells discussed: (a) the 'don't even think about questioning religion' spell and (b) the belief in religion itself. As it is unknown whether religion is good or bad, the first spell must be broken. As for maintaining or rejecting the second spell, that is what we should try to figure out.

Using his broad, yet deep, knowledge about philosophy and biology, Dennett describes how traits that are more likely to be possessed by religious people could have arisen in our evolutionary past, as well as other aspects of ritual, belief, belief in belief and morality without religion. Do not expect a fully developed theory, but do anticipate a fully developed analysis of what kinds of theories currently exist and what kinds of theories we would likely want to pursue.

As a way of engaging the religious, I found two of Dennett's arguments particularly cogent:
(1) If your God has personally told you how the world is and how we should act, please tell the rest of us because He has not done that (yet) to the rest of us. Of course, realize that the rest of us will want rational arguments and evidence to be convinced; a request that is only fair considering what is at stake. (and if the reasons you have a truly good ones, every rational person shall join you soon.)
(2) Even if it is true that your God is the 'right one,' aren't you at all curious that so many people (billions!) have it wrong? Doesn't it make sense to study other religions, why other followers follow and why they are so sure they have it right. (If you truly do not care, then you have already removed yourself from a global dialogue.)

It is difficult to argue with one of Dennett's final suggestions: to increase awareness and education of all religions. Such an occurrence would allow for greater understanding of cultural practices, underlying factors in geopolitical situations, and might allow for useful inter-religious comparisons.

Breaking the Spell is a reasoned, patient and intelligent examination of (the ways of theorizing about) religion as a natural phenomenon. As the topic is extremely important and this is Dennett's most accessible work, I highly recommend you read it.


Tachyos.org  |  Chronon Critical Points  |  Recent Science Book Reviews