Show Book List | More books by Daniel C Dennett

Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

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: 62662 Weight:0.9 lbs
Published: 2007 Penguin (Non-Classics)
Amazon price $11.56
Marketplace:New from $7.29:Used from $5.89
Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info
Hardcover 464 pages ISBN: 0713997893 Salesrank: 218260 Weight:1.81 lbs
Published: 2006 Allen Lane
Marketplace:New from £54.44:Used from £18.00
Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info
Paperback 464 pages ISBN: 0143038338 Salesrank: 847 Weight:0.9 lbs
Published: 2007 Penguin Paperbacks
Amazon price CDN$ 12.78
Marketplace:New from CDN$ 11.11:Used from CDN$ 13.68
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.

Simply Great ****
Breaking the Spell is an excellent book. Contrary to a lot of other books like End of Faith and The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell is not an aggressive book. As a philosopher, Dennet simply asks the questions that everyone is afraid to asks, and explores them from different points of view. It makes you wonder whether getting rid of religion is really worth it, and how there are a lot of studies yet to be made in order to reach a conclusion. It might be a little too long for some people, I found that I wanted to finish it already by the time I reached the last two chapters. However, it is not a hard read, and Dennet takes you smoothly from beginning to end, giving clear examples of all his differente ideas.

Simply Great ****

Breaking the Spell is an excellent book. Contrary to a lot of other books like End of Faith and The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell is not an aggressive book. As a philosopher, Dennet simply asks the questions that everyone is afraid to asks, and explores them from different points of view. It makes you wonder whether getting rid of religion is really worth it, and how there are a lot of studies yet to be made in order to reach a conclusion.
It might be a little too long for some people, I found that I wanted to finish it already by the time I reached the last two chapters. However, it is not a hard read, and Dennet takes you smoothly from beginning to end, giving clear examples of all his differente ideas.

Religion under the spotlight of reason, and that's as it should be! ****
Philosopher Daniel Dennett has undertaken to treat the phenomenon of religion as a subject of close scientific scrutiny. The big question would have to be: Is it worth it? As a comparatively truculent atheist myself, I might well have been quick to say no, since quite frankly I think of religion as a lot of medieval claptrap that humankind ought to just scrape off, unceremoniously, like a barnacle, so that we can get on with our lives in the real world. But Dennett is an atheist of an infinitely more patient sort in his approach, taking the view that as the vast majority of humankind is immensely taken with religion, it demands genuine scrutiny, though it certainly doesn't deserve the sort of "pass" it usually gets automatically. The significance of the book's title is that Dennett breaks two distinct spells--(1) the spell of religion's usual (but specious) immunity to rational examination and (2) the spell that religion itself casts, due to childhood indoctrination, over the majority of humanity in the form of one belief-system or another. Wisely, he defines religion as a social system revolving around belief in some kind of supernatural entity whom it is regarded as necessary to revere. It is indeed the essence of religion that it is a sociological phenomenon--we all expect to be expected by everyone else to be religious, and belief-systems are collective entities fueled by peer pressure and fear. Early on, Dennett acknowledges that many believers chafe mightily at any suggestion that their beliefs might actually be examined rationally, but he says, in effect, that's too bad, because religion is just another phenomenon that one not only can but must place under the microscope-lens of scientific exploration. If it can't survive such scrutiny, tough! In this respect he sides with Richard Dawkins in rejecting the late Stephen Jay Gould's notion that religion and science carve out "nonoverlapping magisteria" placing religion outside the reach of science. Dennett embraces instead the observation that "God" is a scientific hypothesis about the universe-- as Dawkins says, a universe with a god would be quite different from a universe without one--a scientific hypothesis that, like any other such hypothesis, must all be put to the question. And Dennett does so in intricate detail and with consummate skill. I must admit that when one is used to the delectably strident tones of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, one may at first find Dennett a bit soft-spoken, but he gets the job done nonetheless, and does it in a way that religionists are going to be hard put to dismiss out of hand. This remarkable work covers too much ground for any review of reasonable length to deal with in the detail the book deserves. Suffice it to say Dennett regards religion as a cultural phenomenon shaped by the memetic and evolutionary forces of natural selection, and gives the phenomenon its day in court. While acknowledging that religion does things for people that they seem to need, he stresses that the same benefits are available elsewhere without indulgence in delusion. He entertains a number of theories as to the sociological nature of religion, including the idea (my particular favorite) that it is "a malignant feature of human culture, a childhood disease of sorts with lingering aftereffects." In the wake of this book no religious apologist ever again should be able to get away with saying that we unbelievers have never given the nature of religion a fair look. Clearly, one can look and still reject it in the end, as Professor Dennett demonstrates with honesty, fairness, and lucidity of style.

Religion under the spotlight of reason, and that's as it should be! ****

Philosopher Daniel Dennett has undertaken to treat the phenomenon of religion as a subject of close scientific scrutiny. The big question would have to be: Is it worth it? As a comparatively truculent atheist myself, I might well have been quick to say no, since quite frankly I think of religion as a lot of medieval claptrap that humankind ought to just scrape off, unceremoniously, like a barnacle, so that we can get on with our lives in the real world. But Dennett is an atheist of an infinitely more patient sort in his approach, taking the view that as the vast majority of humankind is immensely taken with religion, it demands genuine scrutiny, though it certainly doesn't deserve the sort of "pass" it usually gets automatically. The significance of the book's title is that Dennett breaks two distinct spells--(1) the spell of religion's usual (but specious) immunity to rational examination and (2) the spell that religion itself casts, due to childhood indoctrination, over the majority of humanity in the form of one belief-system or another.
Wisely, he defines religion as a social system revolving around belief in some kind of supernatural entity whom it is regarded as necessary to revere. It is indeed the essence of religion that it is a sociological phenomenon--we all expect to be expected by everyone else to be religious, and belief-systems are collective entities fueled by peer pressure and fear. Early on, Dennett acknowledges that many believers chafe mightily at any suggestion that their beliefs might actually be examined rationally, but he says, in effect, that's too bad, because religion is just another phenomenon that one not only can but must place under the microscope-lens of scientific exploration. If it can't survive such scrutiny, tough! In this respect he sides with Richard Dawkins in rejecting the late Stephen Jay Gould's notion that religion and science carve out "nonoverlapping magisteria" placing religion outside the reach of science. Dennett embraces instead the observation that "God" is a scientific hypothesis about the universe-- as Dawkins says, a universe with a god would be quite different from a universe without one--a scientific hypothesis that, like any other such hypothesis, must all be put to the question. And Dennett does so in intricate detail and with consummate skill. I must admit that when one is used to the delectably strident tones of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, one may at first find Dennett a bit soft-spoken, but he gets the job done nonetheless, and does it in a way that religionists are going to be hard put to dismiss out of hand.
This remarkable work covers too much ground for any review of reasonable length to deal with in the detail the book deserves. Suffice it to say Dennett regards religion as a cultural phenomenon shaped by the memetic and evolutionary forces of natural selection, and gives the phenomenon its day in court. While acknowledging that religion does things for people that they seem to need, he stresses that the same benefits are available elsewhere without indulgence in delusion. He entertains a number of theories as to the sociological nature of religion, including the idea (my particular favorite) that it is "a malignant feature of human culture, a childhood disease of sorts with lingering aftereffects."
In the wake of this book no religious apologist ever again should be able to get away with saying that we unbelievers have never given the nature of religion a fair look. Clearly, one can look and still reject it in the end, as Professor Dennett demonstrates with honesty, fairness, and lucidity of style.

Breaking the spell-- of naturalism **
Dennett writes that . . . [many readers] will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions [the religious ones], and they are dead right about that-- that's what I am and that's exactly what I'm trying to do" (p. 53) He might as well admit it; it's obvious. But at the same time, he wants to maintain the academic spell which still leads many Americans to regard academics as disinterested, apolitical truth-seekers. He is not worried about breaking THAT spell because he thinks he is being scrupulously fair in approaching his hypothesis that religion is a purely natural phenomenon. Investigating that hypothesis, he assures us, "doesn't prejudge the verdict that [the phenomena of religion] are [purely natural]" (p. 25). The verdict could go either way. But, it turns out, the only way supernaturalism can win is if science shows itself to be "utterly unable to account for the [religious] phenomena" (p. 26). Dennett freely admits that his book does not, by itself, provide such an account. Mocking the state of Georgia decision to place stickers on biology texts saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact," Dennett says that he will happily allow a sticker warning that his book is a theory, not a fact. You see, more research needs to be done. But the only God Dennett will allow is a "God of the gaps." And while there may still be many gaps in our naturalistic understanding of religion, Dennett and others are enthusiastically working on them, so-- for now-- religious belief is unjustified. In fact, nothing religion can do would justify faith, which will remain unjustifiable until science decides to quit. What could make science throw in the towel? If the answer is "nothing," then science loses because it has become unfalsifiable (untestable). Dennett therefore courageously sticks his neck out and announces that he will acknowledge defeat if a double-blind randomized prayer test shows that people who are prayed for have significantly better medical outcomes (p. 275) What could be more fair? True, religious folks might worry that this test violates the prohibition on tempting the Lord, but, hey, if they chicken out, is that Dennett's fault? But there is a more serious problem than Dennett's ludicrous attempt to peddle his naturalism as unbiased. Religion does not require a God of the gaps. That means that even if science can explain religious behavior biologically or memetically, that does not rule out God. The idea that science and God are engaged in a zero-sum game was weakly rejected by Stephen Jay Gould in ROCKS OF AGES, earning him Dennett's displeasure-- for rejecting it at all (p. 30). It is strongly opposed by Rodney Stark (in THE VICTORY OF REASON), who argues that science flourished in the West not in spite of Christianity but because of it. But Stark is a sociologist, and Dennett has an undisguised contempt for sociologists who resist biology because they think they are in a zero-sum game with it! But what about Francis Collins, who was former head of the Human Genome Project and became a Christian as an adult? Does Dennett want to accuse Collins of resisting biological knowledge out of fear of breaking his crutch? Collins is surely a sty in the devil's eye. Oh, I'm not calling Dennett a devil, by which I do not mean an evil one but simply a non-believer. Dennett calls himself a "bright"-- excusing the apparent arrogance on the grounds that he did not invent the term. It doesn't mean someone who is intelligent or imply that believers are Neanderthals-- it just means a non-believer. Fine. Then he shouldn't mind being a devil, too. There is irony in Dennett's use of William James, whose THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE Dennett holds up as a good early example of the scientific study of religion. Yes, James was not afraid to examine religion empirically. But does Dennett realize that James was more interested in breaking the spell of skepticism than the spell of religion? That's why he wrote THE WILL TO BELIEVE, which somehow doesn't make it into Dennett's bibliography. In it he says, "To preach scepticism to us as a duty until `sufficient evidence' for religion be found, is tantamount . . . to telling us, when in the presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our fear of its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down its law. And by what, forsooth, is the supreme wisdom of this passion warranted?" I think he's asking you, Professor. Finally, Dennett is worried that his fair-minded examination of religion may get him a punch in the nose (p. 257). If, after reading my review, anyone is inclined to punch him in the nose, please don't.

Breaking the spell-- of naturalism **

Dennett writes that . . . [many readers] will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions [the religious ones], and they are dead right about that-- that's what I am and that's exactly what I'm trying to do" (p. 53) He might as well admit it; it's obvious.
But at the same time, he wants to maintain the academic spell which still leads many Americans to regard academics as disinterested, apolitical truth-seekers. He is not worried about breaking THAT spell because he thinks he is being scrupulously fair in approaching his hypothesis that religion is a purely natural phenomenon. Investigating that hypothesis, he assures us, "doesn't prejudge the verdict that [the phenomena of religion] are [purely natural]" (p. 25). The verdict could go either way. But, it turns out, the only way supernaturalism can win is if science shows itself to be "utterly unable to account for the [religious] phenomena" (p. 26). Dennett freely admits that his book does not, by itself, provide such an account. Mocking the state of Georgia decision to place stickers on biology texts saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact," Dennett says that he will happily allow a sticker warning that his book is a theory, not a fact. You see, more research needs to be done. But the only God Dennett will allow is a "God of the gaps." And while there may still be many gaps in our naturalistic understanding of religion, Dennett and others are enthusiastically working on them, so-- for now-- religious belief is unjustified. In fact, nothing religion can do would justify faith, which will remain unjustifiable until science decides to quit. What could make science throw in the towel? If the answer is "nothing," then science loses because it has become unfalsifiable (untestable). Dennett therefore courageously sticks his neck out and announces that he will acknowledge defeat if a double-blind randomized prayer test shows that people who are prayed for have significantly better medical outcomes (p. 275) What could be more fair? True, religious folks might worry that this test violates the prohibition on tempting the Lord, but, hey, if they chicken out, is that Dennett's fault?
But there is a more serious problem than Dennett's ludicrous attempt to peddle his naturalism as unbiased. Religion does not require a God of the gaps. That means that even if science can explain religious behavior biologically or memetically, that does not rule out God. The idea that science and God are engaged in a zero-sum game was weakly rejected by Stephen Jay Gould in ROCKS OF AGES, earning him Dennett's displeasure-- for rejecting it at all (p. 30). It is strongly opposed by Rodney Stark (in THE VICTORY OF REASON), who argues that science flourished in the West not in spite of Christianity but because of it. But Stark is a sociologist, and Dennett has an undisguised contempt for sociologists who resist biology because they think they are in a zero-sum game with it! But what about Francis Collins, who was former head of the Human Genome Project and became a Christian as an adult? Does Dennett want to accuse Collins of resisting biological knowledge out of fear of breaking his crutch? Collins is surely a sty in the devil's eye. Oh, I'm not calling Dennett a devil, by which I do not mean an evil one but simply a non-believer. Dennett calls himself a "bright"-- excusing the apparent arrogance on the grounds that he did not invent the term. It doesn't mean someone who is intelligent or imply that believers are Neanderthals-- it just means a non-believer. Fine. Then he shouldn't mind being a devil, too.
There is irony in Dennett's use of William James, whose THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE Dennett holds up as a good early example of the scientific study of religion. Yes, James was not afraid to examine religion empirically. But does Dennett realize that James was more interested in breaking the spell of skepticism than the spell of religion? That's why he wrote THE WILL TO BELIEVE, which somehow doesn't make it into Dennett's bibliography. In it he says, "To preach scepticism to us as a duty until `sufficient evidence' for religion be found, is tantamount . . . to telling us, when in the presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our fear of its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down its law. And by what, forsooth, is the supreme wisdom of this passion warranted?" I think he's asking you, Professor.
Finally, Dennett is worried that his fair-minded examination of religion may get him a punch in the nose (p. 257). If, after reading my review, anyone is inclined to punch him in the nose, please don't.

approaching a forbidden subject *****
Dennett encourages us to scrutinize religious behaviors with the same critical skills we apply to other human behaviors. Patiently and politely, he builds the case that moral behavior is not dependent on theology and a belief in a supernatural God. Atheists may exhibit the same range of moral behaviors as religious believers. As to immoral behaviors, those who claim to interpret the will of God should not be exempt from scrutiny or from legal consequences. Chapter 10 is an especially good statement of Dennett's case.

approaching a forbidden subject *****

Dennett encourages us to scrutinize religious behaviors with the same critical skills we apply to other human behaviors. Patiently and politely, he builds the case that moral behavior is not dependent on theology and a belief in a supernatural God. Atheists may exhibit the same range of moral behaviors as religious believers.

As to immoral behaviors, those who claim to interpret the will of God should not be exempt from scrutiny or from legal consequences. Chapter 10 is an especially good statement of Dennett's case.

Should we break the spell? ****
I didn't quite get the purpose of this book. I saw it as an evaluation as to whether or not we ought to study religion as a natural process, in the view that in the future we may have a sufficient explanation to not only understand but control and "break the spell" of religion if it is found that we ought to leave religion in the past. For example, if we find that religion is, on the balance, a negative, we ought not to allow the status quo to continue. So far there has already been a start into the scientific study of religion, by anthropologists such as Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran and others. There are also studies of the neuroscience of religious thought, belief and practice. So Daniel's question is a bit too late. Whether people like it or not, science is studying religion as a natural phenomenon. A novel idea in this book is the notion that we ought to teach our children religion objectively. That is to say we should not give special treatment to any particular religion but show the various beliefs many people have around the world. The effect being that children should be exposed to other world views apart from those in which they are raised in - promoting tolerance and freethought.

Should we break the spell? ****

I didn't quite get the purpose of this book. I saw it as an evaluation as to whether or not we ought to study religion as a natural process, in the view that in the future we may have a sufficient explanation to not only understand but control and "break the spell" of religion if it is found that we ought to leave religion in the past. For example, if we find that religion is, on the balance, a negative, we ought not to allow the status quo to continue.

So far there has already been a start into the scientific study of religion, by anthropologists such as Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran and others. There are also studies of the neuroscience of religious thought, belief and practice. So Daniel's question is a bit too late. Whether people like it or not, science is studying religion as a natural phenomenon.

A novel idea in this book is the notion that we ought to teach our children religion objectively. That is to say we should not give special treatment to any particular religion but show the various beliefs many people have around the world. The effect being that children should be exposed to other world views apart from those in which they are raised in - promoting tolerance and freethought.

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 :-)

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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