Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

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: 8903
Weight:0.9 lbs

Published: 2007 Penguin (Non-Classics)

Amazon price $10.88

Marketplace:New from $8.95:Used from $6.88

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 464 pages
ISBN: 0713997893
Salesrank: 161436
Weight:1.81 lbs

Published: 2006 Allen Lane

Marketplace::Used from £29.22

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 464 pages
ISBN: 0143038338
Salesrank: 12501
Weight:0.9 lbs

Published: 2007 Penguin Paperbacks

Amazon price CDN$ 14.60

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 8.81:Used from CDN$ 11.49

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is It 'Breaking' the Spell or 'Casting' the Spell? A Brilliant Cognitive Philosopher casts his net! *****
Professor Daniel C. Dennett is an international philosopher worthy of His Holiness, Benedict XVI dictum, "the philosopher was someone who knew how to teach the essential art: the art of being authentically human---the art of living and dying." [Encyclical Letter, SPE SALVI facti sumus ("In Hope we were saved", St. Paul, Romans 8:24)] Previous reviewers have drawn attention to Professor Dennett's intentions, scope and achievements, what I want to do is start the process of treating 'religion' as an ideational or notional idea (forgive the impregnated tautology as rhetorical-psychological emphasis). It has a written history! Since I am an ancient language scholar of Oriental (mainly Semitic) and Indo-European languages, I have a secure foundation in the development of religious sacred learning or 'scientific theology.' Here competence in Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Old and Middle Persian, Classical Hebrew and Classical Greek are required. What does one learn when (s)he puts the dry philological details of these various grammatical systems, with their supporting legal, administrative and religious textual documents, in his head? He learns religious learning is self-deception and communal hypocrisy! It is a cover for those human maniacs who inflict the gravest of wrongs upon their fellow man. It was a retreat by human monsters to the inner sanctuaries and temples of learning and instruction to find solace for their moral-legal crimes. Its by-product was useful information about calendars, planting seasons, growth of husbandry and crops, and physical & mental hygiene. But it also producted pernicious by-products such as divination, theurgy, mircle-mongering, begging priests, book-burning, etc. The books of religion as a natural phenomenon have been written; they merely must be read! Start with Sir James Frazer, "The Golden Bough" (12 volumes)! Mankind evoluted in 'science' or knowledge [What the Latin term 'scientia' means] from animism > magic > religion > science > cosmic self-consciousness (modern cosmology-astronomy). This should serve as the great paradigm or archetype model. You will discover along this path that there is much 'word magic' in religious writings. An example is modern authors using learned technical Babylonian terms, or Egyptian terms, or Graeco-Latin terms with no 'real' understanding of what these terms delimited or concretely meant. There is a great spiritual dryness and aridity to religious learning. Metaphor and Analogy add an appropriate amount of eager 'wetness' to these mundane discussions (no pun intended). Presently, Oxford University, Oxford, England just received a $13 Million Dollar grant to study the origin of deity in global human ancient, historical culture. I have just laid out what must be its preamble or harenga. The Oxonian Senior Researchers will learn that any and all religions oscillate between repressive tolerance or intolerance & aggressiveness. Its purpose is to keep the majority mentally ignorant, so they live miserable lives---while teaching them there is a wonderful 'abode of bliss' waiting for them on the otherside of the curtain of Death! See my Review on Dr. Sam Harris' book, "End of Faith" about the role of "cabbage heads" to maintain the absurdities of religion under the dupery of revelations, creeds and doctrinal nonsense. It should be remembered that the French people were the first city-state, the Parisian community, to throw religion out of their society, and declare an Atheistical State in A.D. 1789-1792. It was the military butcher, the monster Napoleon, who brought the mental sickness of religion back into French society. Lastly, having seen Professor Dennett several times on C-Span, I intensely like this humane, philosophical mind! Respectfully, John E.D.P. Malin, Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer Informatica Corporation Executive Division P.O. Drawer 460 Cecilia, Louisiana 70521-0460 Contact Information: InformaticaMalin@gmail.com --

Is It 'Breaking' the Spell or 'Casting' the Spell? A Brilliant Cognitive Philosopher casts his net! *****

Professor Daniel C. Dennett is an international philosopher worthy of His Holiness, Benedict XVI dictum, "the philosopher was someone who knew how to teach the essential art: the art of being authentically human---the art of living and dying." [Encyclical Letter, SPE SALVI facti sumus ("In Hope we were saved", St. Paul, Romans 8:24)]

Previous reviewers have drawn attention to Professor Dennett's intentions, scope and achievements, what I want to do is start the process of treating 'religion' as an ideational or notional idea (forgive the impregnated tautology as rhetorical-psychological emphasis). It has a written history!

Since I am an ancient language scholar of Oriental (mainly Semitic) and Indo-European languages, I have a secure foundation in the development of religious sacred learning or 'scientific theology.' Here competence in Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Old and Middle Persian, Classical Hebrew and Classical Greek are required. What does one learn when (s)he puts the dry philological details of these various grammatical systems, with their supporting legal, administrative and religious textual documents, in his head?

He learns religious learning is self-deception and communal hypocrisy! It is a cover for those human maniacs who inflict the gravest of wrongs upon their fellow man. It was a retreat by human monsters to the inner sanctuaries and temples of learning and instruction to find solace for their moral-legal crimes. Its by-product was useful information about calendars, planting seasons, growth of husbandry and crops, and physical & mental hygiene. But it also producted pernicious by-products such as divination, theurgy, mircle-mongering, begging priests, book-burning, etc.

The books of religion as a natural phenomenon have been written; they merely must be read! Start with Sir James Frazer, "The Golden Bough" (12 volumes)! Mankind evoluted in 'science' or knowledge [What the Latin term 'scientia' means] from animism > magic > religion > science > cosmic self-consciousness (modern cosmology-astronomy). This should serve as the great paradigm or archetype model.

You will discover along this path that there is much 'word magic' in religious writings. An example is modern authors using learned technical Babylonian terms, or Egyptian terms, or Graeco-Latin terms with no 'real' understanding of what these terms delimited or concretely meant. There is a great spiritual dryness and aridity to religious learning. Metaphor and Analogy add an appropriate amount of eager 'wetness' to these mundane discussions (no pun intended).

Presently, Oxford University, Oxford, England just received a $13 Million Dollar grant to study the origin of deity in global human ancient, historical culture. I have just laid out what must be its preamble or harenga. The Oxonian Senior Researchers will learn that any and all religions oscillate between repressive tolerance or intolerance & aggressiveness. Its purpose is to keep the majority mentally ignorant, so they live miserable lives---while teaching them there is a wonderful 'abode of bliss' waiting for them on the otherside of the curtain of Death!

See my Review on Dr. Sam Harris' book, "End of Faith" about the role of "cabbage heads" to maintain the absurdities of religion under the dupery of revelations, creeds and doctrinal nonsense.

It should be remembered that the French people were the first city-state, the Parisian community, to throw religion out of their society, and declare an Atheistical State in A.D. 1789-1792. It was the military butcher, the monster Napoleon, who brought the mental sickness of religion back into French society.

Lastly, having seen Professor Dennett several times on C-Span, I intensely like this humane, philosophical mind!

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin,
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
Informatica Corporation
Executive Division
P.O. Drawer 460
Cecilia, Louisiana 70521-0460

Contact Information: InformaticaMalin@gmail.com

--

Good work! *****
You don't have to be an atheist, an agnostic, or any type of believer to engage this book. That's the whole point, in fact. No matter what your belief (and they are all related to belief), subjecting it to scientific scrutiny can be fascinating and revealing, and especially so with this type of academic yet extremely accessible writing. A beautiful combination of serious purpose and playful joy in the arguments comes through here, and it's infectious. What does NOT come through is any kind of anti-religious agenda, which is easy enough to come by elsewhere and does nothing to advance anyone's cause. I read most books once or twice, and so I get them from the library instead of purchasing them, but this is a book to own. Dennett provides plenty of food for further thought here, and you will come back to his ideas again and again for just that purpose.

Good work! *****

You don't have to be an atheist, an agnostic, or any type of believer to engage this book. That's the whole point, in fact. No matter what your belief (and they are all related to belief), subjecting it to scientific scrutiny can be fascinating and revealing, and especially so with this type of academic yet extremely accessible writing.

A beautiful combination of serious purpose and playful joy in the arguments comes through here, and it's infectious. What does NOT come through is any kind of anti-religious agenda, which is easy enough to come by elsewhere and does nothing to advance anyone's cause.

I read most books once or twice, and so I get them from the library instead of purchasing them, but this is a book to own. Dennett provides plenty of food for further thought here, and you will come back to his ideas again and again for just that purpose.

Belief in Belief *****
This book has a bit more scholarly depth than the other books by the so called "four horsemen" and requires more careful consideration than the other books simply because of the nature of Dennett's view on religion. He never comes across as attacking religion the way the other three famous recent writers do. Dawkins's book is just as good, but it may be for a different audience. This book has a more philosophical bent. The purpose of the book is to examine the phenomenon of religion from a scientific perspective in order to see if it can be adequately studied by science. He argues that religion should not be off-limits to scientific inquiry, and I think most people would agree with that assessment. Even intense religious believers, if they truly believe, should think that science would have something to learn from their beliefs. One would think so, but this is often not the case. Believers are more often offended by the inquiry. He discusses evolutionary theories for why religion may be, and how it possibly evolved into what it is today from the more simple beliefs of primitive peoples. His discussion also touches on morality and meaning of life as it relates to religion...or not. He thinks that a large portion of religious belief is really just belief in belief, rather than actual belief in a god. This assessment is probably correct because of the stigma associated with nonbelief. He advocates more scientific study of religious belief to get to the truth of why it exists, and that can hardly be criticized. This is a thoughtful book that should be considered by the religious as well as the nonreligious.

Belief in Belief *****

This book has a bit more scholarly depth than the other books by the so called "four horsemen" and requires more careful consideration than the other books simply because of the nature of Dennett's view on religion. He never comes across as attacking religion the way the other three famous recent writers do. Dawkins's book is just as good, but it may be for a different audience. This book has a more philosophical bent.

The purpose of the book is to examine the phenomenon of religion from a scientific perspective in order to see if it can be adequately studied by science. He argues that religion should not be off-limits to scientific inquiry, and I think most people would agree with that assessment. Even intense religious believers, if they truly believe, should think that science would have something to learn from their beliefs. One would think so, but this is often not the case. Believers are more often offended by the inquiry.

He discusses evolutionary theories for why religion may be, and how it possibly evolved into what it is today from the more simple beliefs of primitive peoples. His discussion also touches on morality and meaning of life as it relates to religion...or not.

He thinks that a large portion of religious belief is really just belief in belief, rather than actual belief in a god. This assessment is probably correct because of the stigma associated with nonbelief. He advocates more scientific study of religious belief to get to the truth of why it exists, and that can hardly be criticized.

This is a thoughtful book that should be considered by the religious as well as the nonreligious.

Fills a niche. *****
In the God Delusion, Dawkins makes an argument against religion and articulates what he believes to be scientific theories that prove god does not exist. In God Isn't Great, Hitchens gives what reads more like an indictment of organized religion throughout history and spends less time trying to disprove the existence of god (at least as scientifically as Dawkins). In Breaking the Spell, Dennett spends most of his time articulating arguments that would explain the existence of religion. He does not really attempt to prove or disprove anything, including the existence of god. Rather he states repeatedly that his purpose is to "break the spell" of holding religion on a different level and keeping it immune from rational, scientific inquiry. As Mr. Woolard states before me, Mr. Dennett's central idea is that religion is a very important topic in the world today and is arguably the topic most in need of a rational, open, scientific discussion. This book is an attempt to make some of those rational arguments and foster discussion. Mr. Dennett concedes quite early in the book that that is his intent--to raise important questions and give possible answers that need research, not to provide definitive answers. Regardless of the fact that definitive answers aren't going to be found in this book, it is worth the read by anyone interested in the subject. Mr. Dennett does a great job of "breaking the spell" and bringing some illuminating arguments regarding the existence of religion and its continued ability to thrive in human society. I would also recommend doing a search of "Daniel Dennett" on youtube for an introduction to some of the arguments he makes in this book.

Fills a niche. *****

In the God Delusion, Dawkins makes an argument against religion and articulates what he believes to be scientific theories that prove god does not exist. In God Isn't Great, Hitchens gives what reads more like an indictment of organized religion throughout history and spends less time trying to disprove the existence of god (at least as scientifically as Dawkins).

In Breaking the Spell, Dennett spends most of his time articulating arguments that would explain the existence of religion. He does not really attempt to prove or disprove anything, including the existence of god. Rather he states repeatedly that his purpose is to "break the spell" of holding religion on a different level and keeping it immune from rational, scientific inquiry. As Mr. Woolard states before me, Mr. Dennett's central idea is that religion is a very important topic in the world today and is arguably the topic most in need of a rational, open, scientific discussion. This book is an attempt to make some of those rational arguments and foster discussion. Mr. Dennett concedes quite early in the book that that is his intent--to raise important questions and give possible answers that need research, not to provide definitive answers.

Regardless of the fact that definitive answers aren't going to be found in this book, it is worth the read by anyone interested in the subject. Mr. Dennett does a great job of "breaking the spell" and bringing some illuminating arguments regarding the existence of religion and its continued ability to thrive in human society. I would also recommend doing a search of "Daniel Dennett" on youtube for an introduction to some of the arguments he makes in this book.

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.

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.

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 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.

Old questions - still no answers **
When I was reading the book from Daniel Dennett, a distinguished philosopher and director of Cambridge institute for cognitive studies, I was expecting to get some answers for questions why do humans believe in any deity or superstition. Questions like: - Why 80% of the world population so faithful to some kind of religion ? - How can this be explained by psychology ? - Is there a specific genetic predisposition for more religious behavior (nature not nurture) ? - How is religion replacing the parental love with love for God from a specific age (7-years ?) on ? - Why is rationality suppresses and what happens then in the brain ? (Like a scientists is writing his PhD for geology and study 500 million year old strata and is leaving his office/lab and thinks the earth is 6000 years old) Dan Dennett is very carefully and `politically correct' talking around the problem to avoid offending anybody and is carefully considering the possibility to ask some of this old questions - unfortunately answers I had hoped for are not provided.

Old questions - still no answers **

When I was reading the book from Daniel Dennett, a distinguished philosopher and director of Cambridge institute for cognitive studies, I was expecting to get some answers for questions why do humans believe in any deity or superstition.

Questions like:
- Why 80% of the world population so faithful to some kind of religion ?
- How can this be explained by psychology ?
- Is there a specific genetic predisposition for more religious behavior (nature not nurture) ?
- How is religion replacing the parental love with love for God from a specific age (7-years ?) on ?
- Why is rationality suppresses and what happens then in the brain ? (Like a scientists is writing his PhD for geology and study 500 million year old strata and is leaving his office/lab and *thinks* the earth is 6000 years old)

Dan Dennett is very carefully and `politically correct' talking around the problem to avoid offending anybody and is carefully considering the possibility to ask some of this old questions - unfortunately answers I had hoped for are not provided.

Philosophy at its best ****
How to break the spell? Dennett knows: don't pretend you have answers and instead ask good questions. Lots of them in sincere response to lots of supposed answers that don't seem like satisfying answers. I've done this in a non-systematic way and I suspect you may have too but I have never seen it done so well as Dennett does in this book. In the chapter on "Morality and Religion", he even makes this approach explicit in a marvelous statement about what what he says some people have realized is "one of the best secrets of life: let your self go". By which he means, not into any kind of reckless behavior but with a "humble curiousity" in response to the "world's complexity". The paragraph in which he elaborates on that view is, for me, worth by itself reading the book for - but there is so much more insight in this book, it is really a treasure of showing you just how far someone can go if they adopt that attitude. Whether you or I can achieve Dennett's level of effective questioning I don't know but it certainly seems worth a try. In the following chapter "Now What Do We Do?", Dennett proposes alternative schooling for children that would not only address their real needs but also allow a questioning attitude that would challenge religious claims rather than waste student's time on any religious indoctrination. There's a great deal more in this delightful book but hopefully the above alone will help you realize, as it has me, that Dennett represents cognitive studies at its best.

Philosophy at its best ****

How to break the spell? Dennett knows: don't pretend you have answers and instead ask good questions. Lots of them in sincere response to lots of supposed answers that don't seem like satisfying answers.

I've done this in a non-systematic way and I suspect you may have too but I have never seen it done so well as Dennett does in this book. In the chapter on "Morality and Religion", he even makes this approach explicit in a marvelous statement about what what he says some people have realized is "one of the best secrets of life: let your self go". By which he means, not into any kind of reckless behavior but with a "humble curiousity" in response to the "world's complexity". The paragraph in which he elaborates on that view is, for me, worth by itself reading the book for - but there is so much more insight in this book, it is really a treasure of showing you just how far someone can go if they adopt that attitude. Whether you or I can achieve Dennett's level of effective questioning I don't know but it certainly seems worth a try. In the following chapter "Now What Do We Do?", Dennett proposes alternative schooling for children that would not only address their real needs but also allow a questioning attitude that would challenge religious claims rather than waste student's time on any religious indoctrination.

There's a great deal more in this delightful book but hopefully the above alone will help you realize, as it has me, that Dennett represents cognitive studies at its best.

Takes to long to make points **
Why is Religion here? Is it ever going to go away? This book isn't about answering these complicated questions, but more about why we should ask these questions and how we could go about getting reliable answers. Dennet's view is that we could examine Religion empiraclly and scientifically. By having some reliable data we would then understand the paradigm more and approach reliable answers to these questions. Religious people should not have a fear about this as if they wish to understand their Religion they should be prepared to examine it. We should then present all findings and not hide anything. I felt that this honest and objective approach was Dennet's political correct and sensitive way of saying we must really look at Religion more critically. He is certainly not as caustic as Dawkins or Hitchens and an approach of critizing something that people hold sacred with sensitivity is to be welcomed. That said, I found that Dennet spent too long making some of his points. Sometimes, I felt he would take 5 pages to make a point that could have been made in half a page. This was either because Dennet was trying to convey to the reader he was being as objective as possible or it was because he needs to hire himself a good editor. Probably a bit of both. I am not sure if Dennet pushed the buttons in this book. Who is it meant to appeal to? Most atheists I am sure will have already questioned Religion. Intelligent Religious people who don't like to be offended but who are open minded about their beliefs might like it - but how many of them are there? What about someone doing some sociology research and needs some ideas? Perhaps. I didn't get much of it anyway. A book that described results of some of the studies and experiments Dennet's suggest would certainly be very interesting. But I was kind of hoping this book would be that, not simply saying what we could do and why we should do it. That to me is too obvious. I also found the writing style too cumbersome. I think Dennet is a far better speaker than writer.

Takes to long to make points **

Why is Religion here? Is it ever going to go away? This book isn't about answering these complicated questions, but more about why we should ask these questions and how we could go about getting reliable answers.

Dennet's view is that we could examine Religion empiraclly and scientifically. By having some reliable data we would then understand the paradigm more and approach reliable answers to these questions. Religious people should not have a fear about this as if they wish to understand their Religion they should be prepared to examine it. We should then present all findings and not hide anything.

I felt that this honest and objective approach was Dennet's political correct and sensitive way of saying we must really look at Religion more critically. He is certainly not as caustic as Dawkins or Hitchens
and an approach of critizing something that people hold sacred with sensitivity is to be welcomed.

That said, I found that Dennet spent too long making some of his points. Sometimes, I felt he would take 5 pages to make a point that could have been made in half a page. This was either because Dennet was trying to convey to the reader he was being as objective as possible or it was because he needs to hire himself a good editor. Probably a bit of both.

I am not sure if Dennet pushed the buttons in this book. Who is it meant to appeal to? Most atheists I am sure will have already questioned Religion. Intelligent Religious people who don't like to be offended but who are open minded about their beliefs might like it - but how many of them are there? What about someone doing some sociology research and needs some ideas? Perhaps.

I didn't get much of it anyway. A book that described results of some of the studies and experiments Dennet's suggest would certainly be very interesting. But I was kind of hoping this book would be that, not simply saying what we could do and why we should do it. That to me is too obvious.

I also found the writing style too cumbersome. I think Dennet is a far better speaker than writer.

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

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...

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 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.

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.

Religion is commonly believed to be a stablizing influence *****
Religion is commonly believed to be a stablizing influence in any society - but is it really? 'Why not subject it to scientific scrutiny?' asks Daniel Dennett, director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. 'Maybe it is just another bad habit.' History has shown that science - despite wrong turns, egos, politics, jealousy, ambition - has a consistent record of being more correct than any other method of inquiry. Just ask anyone who bets their life on science every time they board a commercial airliner. Religion's taboo against self-examination is brilliant. Guaranteed to cause controversy, Dennett addresses this issue and presents a plan. Dennett surveys various theories of religion: From Scott Atran - Religion is (1) a community's costly and hard-to-fake committment (2) to a counterfactual and counterintuitive world of supernatural agent(s) (3) who master peoples' existential anxieties, such as death and deception. (4) ritualistic and rhythmic co-ordination of 1, 2, & 3 such as communion. This tendency to invent a supernatural agency is an evolutionary by-product which involves exaggerated use of everyday cognitive processes to produce unreal worlds that easily attract attention, are readily memorable, and are subject to cultural transmission, selection, & survival. Add a few hopeful solutions to the problems involving the tragedies of life and death, and you get religion. From Pascal Boyer - Every religion has these common features: (1) A supernatural agent who takes a specific ontologic form (animal, tree, human, etc.) (2) There is something memorably different about this agent (the animal talks, the tree records conversation, the human is born of a virgin) which is an ontological violation. (3) This agent knows strategic information and can use it for or against you. Fun to read and not as dense as his acclaimed 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea,' Dennett has addressed this book to the believer, who knows in his heart he is on the right path. 'If you are one of these, here is what I hope will be a sobering reflection: have you considered that you are perhaps being irresponsible?...If it [religion] is fundamentally benign, as many of its devotees insist, it should emerge just fine suspicions will be put to rest and we can then concentrate on the few peripheral pathologies that religions, like every other natural phenomemon, fall prey to.' Dennett clearly thinks God is made in man's image, as opposed to man's being a product of God's creation. In his view, the costs and benefits of religion need to be assayed with the scrupulous objectivity of science, and he outlines a plan to do just that. For another great read try-The Quest-by George Kostantinos

Religion is commonly believed to be a stablizing influence *****

Religion is commonly believed to be a stablizing influence in any society - but is it really? 'Why not subject it to scientific scrutiny?' asks Daniel Dennett, director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. 'Maybe it is just another bad habit.' History has shown that science - despite wrong turns, egos, politics, jealousy, ambition - has a consistent record of being more correct than any other method of inquiry. Just ask anyone who bets their life on science every time they board a commercial airliner. Religion's taboo against self-examination is brilliant. Guaranteed to cause controversy, Dennett addresses this issue and presents a plan. Dennett surveys various theories of religion: From Scott Atran - Religion is (1) a community's costly and hard-to-fake committment (2) to a counterfactual and counterintuitive world of supernatural agent(s) (3) who master peoples' existential anxieties, such as death and deception. (4) ritualistic and rhythmic co-ordination of 1, 2, & 3 such as communion. This tendency to invent a supernatural agency is an evolutionary by-product which involves exaggerated use of everyday cognitive processes to produce unreal worlds that easily attract attention, are readily memorable, and are subject to cultural transmission, selection, & survival. Add a few hopeful solutions to the problems involving the tragedies of life and death, and you get religion. From Pascal Boyer - Every religion has these common features: (1) A supernatural agent who takes a specific ontologic form (animal, tree, human, etc.) (2) There is something memorably different about this agent (the animal talks, the tree records conversation, the human is born of a virgin) which is an ontological violation. (3) This agent knows strategic information and can use it for or against you. Fun to read and not as dense as his acclaimed 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea,' Dennett has addressed this book to the believer, who knows in his heart he is on the right path. 'If you are one of these, here is what I hope will be a sobering reflection: have you considered that you are perhaps being irresponsible?...If it [religion] is fundamentally benign, as many of its devotees insist, it should emerge just fine suspicions will be put to rest and we can then concentrate on the few peripheral pathologies that religions, like every other natural phenomemon, fall prey to.' Dennett clearly thinks God is made in man's image, as opposed to man's being a product of God's creation. In his view, the costs and benefits of religion need to be assayed with the scrupulous objectivity of science, and he outlines a plan to do just that.
For another great read try-The Quest-by George Kostantinos