|
|
Breaking the SpellC.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: 17847
Weight:0.85 lbs | | Published: 2007 Penguin (Non-Classics) | | Amazon price $11.56 | | Marketplace:New from $8.46:Used from $6.00 |
|---|
| Buy from Amazon.com |
|---|
|
|
| Amazon.ca info
|
|---|
Paperback
464 pages
ISBN: 0143038338
Salesrank: 1346
Weight:0.85 lbs | | Published: 2007 Penguin Paperbacks | | Amazon price CDN$ 13.51 | | Marketplace:New from CDN$ 8.57:Used from CDN$ 10.98 |
|---|
| 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. |
| Tactful and Thought Provoking *** |
|---|
Unlike the arrogant and aggressive approach of most militant atheists, Dennett's approach to critiquing religion is quite diplomatic and respectful. He seems to be aware that to address religious folk in an arrogant and haughty manner is to alienate the religious reader straight away.
So rather than verbally bashing the religious reader into submission, Dennett strives to convince the reader instead. This was quite refreshing.
To a large degree he is successful in departing from the traditional approach of the new atheists. There were very few times that I found myself rolling my eyes in reaction to the typical atheist drivel that is found in abundance in Dawkins and Hitchens works. Dennett seemed to have set the bar a bit higher.
Dennett makes the point that Christians need to make their religion less of a "sacred cow", and more of a "worthy alternative" to all other worldviews. As a Christian myself, I have no doubt that this would be a virtuous exercise. Christianity could gain a lot from a critical examination, and a subsequent purge of all the dross that has infected it from the wider society over history.
But one must not make the mistake of rejecting religion outright simply because it contains a few faults.
Ultimately, if Christianity is the one true religion, then it will emerge from such a critique much stronger.
I was very surprised to see that Dennett departs from the standard antireligious dogma of the other militant atheists who demand that religion should be totally wiped from schools. In contrast to this draconian position, Dennett believes that more religion should be taught in schools.
He believes that students should be taught about all religions, not just the one that they have been brought up in. I think that in the multicultural society that we live in today, it would be highly beneficial to teach about the most prevalent faiths.
He also believes that, contrary to the absurd claims of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, that parents should teach their children whatever they want - within reason- as long as it doesn't "close their minds through fear and hatred or disable them from inquiry."
Despite the refreshingly tactful approach that Dennett took, he still managed to fall into some of the same old traps.
One of the usual dirty tricks that other militant atheist authors are guilty of is overstating the validity of evolution.
And Dennett is no less guilty of this. At one point he actually says that "Evolution is about as well established as the fact that water is H2O." Suffice it to say that no event of prehistory can ever be as scientifically established as water is H2O.
Another dirty trick - or maybe wilful ignorance - is his comment that there are no reputable scientists who reject evolution. Lists of reputable scientists, such as from Creation Ministries International or the Discovery institute, amply refute this claim.
Overall this book was a refreshingly diplomatic break from the usual antireligious diatribe of the new atheists. Dennett's exploration into "religion as a natural phenomenon" was quite genuine and thought provoking. But it's major downfall was that it is quite boring. Something about Dennett's writing style left me rather flat and unenthused, which is quite odd for an antireligious book.
So based on the content of the book I would give four stars, but on style two.
This leaves an average of three stars.
You can find my more comprehensive review of this book at my website, a link to which is on my profile page.
|
| Religion is Like A Frog; It Doesn't Survive Dissection ***** |
|---|
I'll cop immediately to being a fan in general of the "New Atheism"; however, I've also had my problems with many of the works that were part of this recent trend. I don't have a particular problem with Hitchens and Dawkins rather ruthless treatment of religion; they're simply asking some obvious questions that religion has managed to obfuscate or bully people away from for far too long. My problem is that they do sometimes descend into bad philosophy and have a tendency to take cheap shots when they could be asking some more productive questions. Dennett, however, takes a different tack. A philosopher, not a biologist like Dawkins or a polemicist like Hitchens, Dennett starts by asking two questions; is religion a phenomenon we can understand prosaically? And should we want to?
These are, as it turns out, not easy questions, and Dennett's treatment of them reflects this. He explores various hypotheses for religion's existence and desirability slowly and carefully, but with incredible skill and precision. What religion is at base, and what function it serves, are necessary to determining our attitude towards it, and some of the answers Dennett has come up with are shocking and counterintuitive, but supported by a lot of evidence (some of it admittedly circumstantial). This book was not intended to be the last word on the subject; it was intended to foster inquiry, and I hope it's just the first of its kind. However, while Dennett's tone is mild, and his respect and compassion for religious believers is evident, his logic and methods are in their way more destructive to religion than those fostered by the other "four horsemen". Their work has been more like a broad swipe with a cleaver, while Dennett is much more like a surgeon expertly wielding a scalpel. They've been questioning Oz's orders while Dennett has shown us the first glimpse of the man behind the curtain.
Besides its fantastic and mind-opening exploration of the roots of religious sentiment, and how it affects us today, Dennett's book is a wealth of small details and strangely interconnected accounts of various human and natural phenomena. Music, art, religion, language, history, and yes, evolution, are all mightily entangled and far from removing the wonder of this tapestry, Dennett's exploration has only whetted my thirst for knowledge about it. While the ideas presented are not simple, Dennett has written the book as clearly as possible to make it readable by a large audience. As a result of course, the usual postmodernist and theologician suspects will claim that Dennett doesn't really get the vast complexity of the nonsense they regularly spout; which may be correct since I'm fairly sure they don't get it either. He gives such arguments a fair hearing in the book before disposing handily of them.
Ultimately, you either care what's true, or you don't. This book is for those that do, and are willing to ask some tough questions that may take a while to answer accurately. It's also highly readable and fascinating.
|
| an interesting read **** |
|---|
I do not agree with much of the book, particularly the thesis of the book which is that religion should be studied by science and if studied by science it will be found to be a natural phenomena explainable by scientific principles.
However, it was very interesting and well written, making for enjoyable reading.
J. Robert Ewbank author "John Wesley, Natural Man, and the 'Isms'" |
| the wrong spell ** |
|---|
Dennett is right about having to break a spell. He just doesn't locate it precisely.
Revonsuo diagnoses the problem more accurately in Inner Presence: Consciousness as a Biological Phenomenon especially pages 118-119. |
| tedious drivel * |
|---|
| Dennett is clearly blind to his religious committment (evolutionism) as well as the frequent contradictions in his reasoning. The book could easily have been condensed to a tenth the size, and would have been much less tedious as a result. Read it if you want to find out how Dennett thinks. Read something else if you want scholarship. |
| A typical narrow secular view based on pure materialism. * |
|---|
| Dennett falls squarely in the secular camp of trying to explain reality through the eyes of a "scientific" world view that seeks material clarification before it "believes" something. This is of course something of a contradiction, if they scientifically prove something then belief becomes null and void. D'Souza hits the nail on the head when he says of Dennett's and other atheist's ideology stating rightly that they 'frequently conflate procedural atheism with philosophical atheism. They pretend that because God cannot be discovered through science, God cannot be discovered at all...[Dennett's] philosophical atheism is narrowly dogmatic because it closes itself off from knowledge that does not conform to materialism and naturalism...by contrast the theist is much more open-minded and reasonable. The theist does not rely on validity of scientific reasoning. On the contrary, the theist is constantly reasoning in this way in work and life. The theist is entirely willing to acknowledge material and natural causes for events, but he also admits the possibility of other types of knowledge' (D'Souza D., 'What's So Great About Christianity' 2007 Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. pp.167-8). Read D'Souza's book and it will open the atheist mind-set, Dennett will keep it closed and ignorant. Dennett is not convinving to the theist as the theist has developed his mind beyond the reaches of a narrow secular world-view. Secularists who have posted positive comments on Dennett's book have been closed off in the same vein as Dennett himself. Those of us who have been there can confidently and un-aggressively explain a broader and more enlightened way of thinking which eventually allows God to enter the seeker and the seeker to become peaceful and not agressive as is the secular "way". |
| A philosopher explores religion ***** |
|---|
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett, Penguin, 2007, 464 ff.
A philosopher explores religion
By Howard A. Jones
Much of the first part of this book presents Dennett's justification for studying religion rationally and `scientifically' - this is the `spell' (of reverence) that he is aiming to break. Sir Alister Hardy F.R.S., the marine biologist, had a similar aim when he set up the Religious Experience Research Centre at Oxford University (now at University of Wales, Lampeter). Like the only other Dennett book I have read, "Consciousness Explained", Dennett's writings are like written meditations on a subject, explored from every angle that he can think of, in true philosophical style. They therefore demand concentrated reading to following the many twists and turns of argument.
The author makes the point that religion can hardly be said to have evolutionary survival value given the `costs in time, resources, pain and privation' quite apart from the genocides committed in the name of God. The fact that it has survived though space and time should be rationally investigated and its origins sought and explained, as proposed by the Scottish philosopher David Hume three centuries ago. Dennett attributes religion's success to human evolution in the sense of being perpetuated as a "meme" (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Paladin, 1978, p.206) because it is socially useful. However, the author pays little regard to the metaphysical, psychological or even sociological aspects of religion: the treatment here is largely in terms of evolutionary biology.
He considers our love of music in a comparable light to our need for religion, how we would fare without it, and discusses the relation between religious art, language and music and their relative value in survival. He sees organised religion as having evolved from folk religion, just as formal music has evolved from folk music. Religion is part of the biology of evolution as we develop our higher senses and is therefore a natural phenomenon. It has survived because it is used as a source of moral values, it lessens fear of death, and provides a social milieu devoted to spiritual issues removed from everyday life, which may be unhappy or stressful: religion provides a spiritual retreat. However, Dennett rejects Durkheim's functionalism (that societies act in concert for mutual benefit) as applied to religion, just as Dawkins rejects Gaia (that systems of the Earth act cooperatively for their mutual benefit).
I found Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained" a more balanced and more easily readable account of the same subject, and Dennett refers to Boyer's book, and to the classic by William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, frequently. Overall though, the book is witty, informative and thought-provoking. There are extensive Notes, a detailed Bibliography of references and further reading, and an Index at the end of the book.
Dr Howard A. Jones is the author of The Thoughtful Guide to God (2006) and The Tao of Holism (2008), both published by O Books of Winchester, UK.
Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors
|
| You can't be serious! * |
|---|
| You can't be serious Mr Dennett, that you expect us to take stuff like this as a serious intellectual exercise! |
| Disappointing ** |
|---|
| Dennett claims to be a 'philosopher'. He quotes many ideas from others, but adds few of his own. Polemic is no substitute for scientific neutrality. I missed the insights of Dawkins who does these things better. |
| Well, I read it twice ***** |
|---|
This is a really thorough, mature and well reasoned book. It's academically solid, but eminently accessible to anyone who isn't irredeemably irrational. I read it through twice and enjoyed it more the second time - it's rich in facts, anecdotes and though-provoking ideas.
Since it's an extended argument in favour of a scientific approach to religion, some scientific literacy is probably helpful (but not essential) when reading it. Although Dennett targets religion specifically, you will probably finish the book convinced that nothing whatsover should be off-limits to science. I did anyway.
He does go to extreme lengths to accommodate religious sensibilities and avoid giving offence. Initially this might seem overdone, and too apologetic; but it also has the effect of foreclosing many avenues of opposition to his argument.
It's also a great book if you want to follow up any of the ideas - there are several hundred references and detailed notes; and I've used quite a few of them to further my own reading.
And I particularly liked the bit about accordionists. It's really true :-) |
| DENNET BUILDS ON AN OLD MEME AND APPARENTLY FORGETS HIS EVOLUTION ** |
|---|
Whether many may disagree, Evolutionary theory is the best scientific approach we humans have devised so far in order to comprehend and explain our existence. I also have Dennet's older book, Consciousness Explained, which (although speculative in many points) was much more solidly built on scientific facts. This one, in most part, is not.
I strongly agree with putting religion to scrutiny - especially scientific one. (Fine chance to weed out all the New Age, astrology & crystals mumbo-jumbo claiming a scientific basis). However, the scientific approach cuts both ways: either one accepts its truths or not. Manipulating scientific facts and mixing them with speculations does not lead to solid conclusions.
FACT: over 84% of humans follow some religion (New Scientist, Feb.2009). This can only mean that there is a survival or reproductive advantage in being religious. In other words, Evolution decided that it was advantageous for the survival of humans to be religious. Hence, the predisposition of humans to accept the existence of God.
The proposition of memes (Dawkins, 1976) may be a useful tool in order to approach cultural phenomena as genetic traits.
FACT: although useful, memes never have been proven to be more than a useful abstraction - similar to Freud's id, ego and super-ego, very useful for psychoanalysis but can anyone please point to me the brain locus of the ego?
Nevertheless, Dennet builds almost his entire argumentative structure on this "ideas propagating even by harming their hosts, just like viruses" basis. Very weak under any light. Not to mention that he consciously seems to ignore the fact that they may benefit an equal (at least) number of people. Hence: the "Spell" may not necessarily be the negative thing he implies.
September 11th seems to have precipitated an undiscriminating anti-religious wind sweeping across America. The attackers were all Muslim fanatics (I am sure that the fact that they had to endure CIA-backed authoritative regimes in their home-country had nothing to do with it), so now all religions are bad JuJu.
As usual, leave it to militant intellectuals neo-cons to throw out the baby with the bath-water... |
| Intelligent and compelling ***** |
|---|
US philosopher Daniel Dennett and his British pal, biologist Richard Dawkins, each offer a new book on religion, and it's worth reviewing them together.
Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is a powerful tirade against the excesses of religion, packed with examples both disturbing and hilarious. He argues that even 'moderate' religion cripples the mind, and vigorously unpicks the many claims for its truth and worth. His project is to show the wavering believer that blind faith, far from being a virtue, is an absurd and damaging waste of intellect, and calls for its abandonment in favour of an enlightened and healthy atheism: come on in, the water's fine!
Dennett's "Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon" takes a more measured and rigorous approach. Dennett (though an atheist) seeks not so much to attack religion as to explain it, and to do so without recourse to gods. The spell he wishes to break is the taboo that surrounds the debate, preventing the many and contradictory tenets of religion from being seriously examined.
Though Dawkins' heartfelt call is eloquent and impassioned, some readers may still find his sometimes abrasive tone sufficient excuse to dismiss his thesis. Dennett's book, however, rarely strays from the courteous and builds a careful and cogent argument that is potentially more persuasive - even unassailable. It's an elegant and fascinating read, and it's perhaps a shame that it won't have the same high-profile as Dawkins' fireworks. |
| Dennett's Dangerous Idea ***** |
|---|
| Can religion be subject to scientific scrutiny? In this remarkable study, Dennett proposes that not only can religion studied be methodically, but that it should be. His suggestion will be stupefying to some, as he readily admits. Is your mind open to the notion that the vast repository of human values could be carefully examined? Then this book will provide many new paths for you to explore. He openly appeals to a wide audience, starting with his fellow countrymen. Dennett's ability to present complex issues, including those of social importance, in a clear and almost intimate manner should grant this book the wide readership he seeks. The beginning chapter, "Opening Pandora's Box", reminds us that what was long considered inexplicable or mysterious can be revealed. He anticipates the criticism that "spiritual" things or "faith" aren't qualities that submit to analysis. The task, he acknowledges, is immense, but can be accomplished. Certain elements must be agreed upon, such as the definition of "religion". What we call religion, Dennett, contends, ought to exclude "spiritualism", fanatic devotion to secular items such as ethnic groups or idolizing sports figures. On the other hand religion is a dynamic and variable concept and tight demarcation is neither possible or desirable. Religion, then, is a social system incorporating supernatural agents that can reward or punish. Writers preceding him, such as Robert Atran, Pascal Boyer and Walter Burkert are acknowledged as good starting points. Dennett cites them often as contributors to his thinking. His distant, but highly influential, mentor is William James. Although Dennett's atheism is well known, this book is anything but a call for the abolition of religion. Quite the reverse. He acknowledges the pervasive place of religion in human society. He asks how that came to be and thoroughly examines the various elements that comprise the makeup of a religion. Beginning with the concept of invisible "agency" as the explanation for unusual or unexpected phenomena, ideas about these agents became memes passed through and accepted by society. "Memes", a concept popularized by Richard Dawkins, are the mental equivalent of biological genes. Memes are ideas that replicate and expand through a population. In the case of religion, Dennett suggests, answers to the mysterious might be offered by society's older and wiser members. When such elders died, their transformation into agents themselves. It was almost inevitable, then, that human-like deities arose to be consulted and advise society on courses of action and behaviour. Once established, and with such powerful agencies underlying them, religions mounted a defensive barrier against inquiry. This "wall" which ranges in firmness from mild disapproval to vigorous hostility, has prevented science from posing rational questions about religion's tenets. Dennett counters that religion should not be excluded from the range of topics that can be investigated. Language research has demonstrated that something seemingly too amorphous to clarify meaningfully can reveal a wide spectrum of human endeavours. He sets out a number of areas to investigate, such as the distinction between belief in a god and the "belief in belief". The latter is part of the glue of social cohesion and common purpose. Can we learn how that works? Dennett's earlier work on "intentional objects" is invoked to discuss how gods are perceived by believers. What will the deity do in a given circumstance? What must the believer do to condition response? These are all plausible questions for enquiry and Dennett seeks to have them pursued. His final chapter is an outline of research paths that could be followed to investigate religion. He proposes a theory, which all readers are asked to challenge. He presents many commonly-held practices that are taken for granted, asking for explanations of why they exist and reconsideration of their value or impact. Should children receive religious instruction before they understand the issues? Is it "mental child abuse?". Should the practice be banned or is there another option? For this and other questions, evidence must be compiled and presented, along with countervailing theories, if they can be formulated. The only thing unacceptable is finding the quest itself unacceptable. Religion, Dennett notes, is too important to be beyond inquiry. This book is rich with questions we should be asking ourselves, if we aren't already. Review them in this excellent call for explanations for an overlooked subject. Dennett knows that enquiry alone will not destroy religion. If it should, then religion's thrall on humanity was false to begin with. Dennett notes that if enquiry results in clarification and honesty, religion would emerge in a healthier condition. Whichever you wish or hope to achieve by investigating religion, it's clear the task must be undertaken. There are endless opportunities for research careers in the topics he lists for further exploration. Read this and find out where you might help take up the challenge. |
| Chewy. **** |
|---|
Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. While many good points are made, he tends to spend the first half of the book clearing his throat in preparation for the second half. There are many gems of thought found within the pages, but I had to force myself to finish the book as it is a bit of a dry and perhaps tedious read. It is a good addition to the arsenal against the bandwagon of faith, and many may enjoy it, but I have much prefered other works such as:
"Atheism explained" by David Ramsay Steele
"50 Reasons people give for believing in gods" by Guy P. Harrison
"Atheist Universe" by David Mills
"God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens |
| A Very Human Book ***** |
|---|
What to add to the many excellent reviews already posted?
Not long before I read BREAKING THE SPELL I had lunch with a couple of friends who were exercised about the utter irrationality of some of the religious types they knew. They just couldn't "get" what religious belief and affiliation was giving these folks.
After reading BREAKING THE SPELL I felt I "got it." Religion is a "natural phenomena." Irrational belief structures make sense in the right context. And it's the context Daniel Dennett provides, the most important aspect of which is how our brains are put together. (Be sure to read Stephen Pinker's HOW THE BRAIN WORKS too.)
So despite the fact Dennett gets thrown in with the most radical of religion attackers, I believe BREAKING THE SPELL comes across with a far more compassionate approach.
I believe, too, that accepting why human brains "naturally" create folk and organized religions is a better platform for curtailing the many and obvious problems with religion -- especially the institutionalized lack of compassion for others -- than outright antipathy.
I've already sent copies to friends who've been deeply hurt by religion, especially American fundamentalist "Christianity." It's been healing for them.
Dr. Kirtland C Peterson |
| Dennet Builts on an Old Idea and Forgets His Evolution... ** |
|---|
Whether many may disagree, Evolutionary theory is the best scientific approach we humans have devised so far in order to comprehend and explain our existence. I also have Dennet's older book, Consciousness Explained, which (although speculative in many points) was much more solidly built on scientific facts. This one, in most part, is not.
I strongly agree with putting religion to scrutiny - especially scientific one. (Fine chance to weed out all the New Age, astrology & crystals mumbo-jumbo claiming a scientific basis). However, the scientific approach cuts both ways: either one accepts its truths or not. Manipulating scientific facts and mixing them with speculations does not lead to solid conclusions.
FACT: since over 90% of humans follow some religion (Dennet fans please remember that there are more than 5 billion people besides North Americans) this can only mean that there is a survival or reproductive advantage in being religious. In other words, Evolution decided that it was advantageous for humans to be religious.
The proposition of memes (Dawkins, 1976) may be a usefull tool in order to approach cultural phenomena as genetic traits.
FACT: although useful, memes never have been proven to be more than a useful abstraction - similar to Freud's id, ego and super-ego, very useful for psychoanalysis but can anyone please point to me the brain locus of the ego?
Nevertheless, Dennet builds almost his entire argumentative structure on this "ideas propagating even by harming their hosts, just like viruses" basis. Very weak under any light. Not to mention that he consciously seems to ignore the fact that they may benefit an equal (at least) number of people. Hence: the "Spell" may not necessarily be the negative thing he implies.
September 11th seems to have precipitated an undiscriminating untireligious wind sweeping across America. The attackers were all Muslim fanatics (I am sure that the fact that they had to endure CIA-backed authoritative regimes in their home-country had nothing to do with it), so now all religions are bad JuJu.
As usual, leave it to militant intellectuals to throw out the baby with the bath-water... |
| Dennett's Gentle Attack on Religion **** |
|---|
If you're looking at this review, you've probably already read (or are considering reading) End of Faith by Sam Harris and/or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. All three books state the case for reason and against religious faith. Breaking the Spell, however, takes a much softer approach. Harris and Dawkins do not care who they offend. Dennett tries to be gentle and polite. One would think that is a better approach, but that is not how it works out.
Perhaps Dennett is too gentle, or perhaps this argument is one that has to be made forcefully or not at all. In the end, Dennett's book has no audience. The religious won't read it, and won't be convinced. Harris and Dawkins may simply offend most religious people, but they may also convince a few. Atheists like me will prefer Harris and Dawkins.
In the end, this is probably Dennett's worst book. That is not an insult. Dennett is a brilliant philosopher and a wonderful writer. Consciouness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are two of the finest books ever written. |
| Dennett's delightful, delicate, description of religion. ***** |
|---|
| It is relatively easy to take a firm stance and not care about subsequent social divisiveness, while much harder to attempt understanding of the complexity of an issue, what is known and unknown, and discuss one's viewpoint in a manner that allows for, and stimulates, further discussion among rational people. Thus, Dennett uses caution in his investigation and does not propose to have all the answers, but he suggests some useful ways of thinking about how to get them (if it possible). Dennett realizes that there are good spells and bad spells, and at this moment it is hard to tell which one religion might be. There are two main spells discussed: (a) the 'don't even think about questioning religion' spell and (b) the belief in religion itself. As it is unknown whether religion is good or bad, the first spell must be broken. As for maintaining or rejecting the second spell, that is what we should try to figure out. Using his broad, yet deep, knowledge about philosophy and biology, Dennett describes how traits that are more likely to be possessed by religious people could have arisen in our evolutionary past, as well as other aspects of ritual, belief, belief in belief and morality without religion. Do not expect a fully developed theory, but do anticipate a fully developed analysis of what kinds of theories currently exist and what kinds of theories we would likely want to pursue. As a way of engaging the religious, I found two of Dennett's arguments particularly cogent:
(1) If your God has personally told you how the world is and how we should act, please tell the rest of us because He has not done that (yet) to the rest of us. Of course, realize that the rest of us will want rational arguments and evidence to be convinced; a request that is only fair considering what is at stake. (and if the reasons you have a truly good ones, every rational person shall join you soon.)
(2) Even if it is true that your God is the 'right one,' aren't you at all curious that so many people (billions!) have it wrong? Doesn't it make sense to study other religions, why other followers follow and why they are so sure they have it right. (If you truly do not care, then you have already removed yourself from a global dialogue.) It is difficult to argue with one of Dennett's final suggestions: to increase awareness and education of all religions. Such an occurrence would allow for greater understanding of cultural practices, underlying factors in geopolitical situations, and might allow for useful inter-religious comparisons. Breaking the Spell is a reasoned, patient and intelligent examination of (the ways of theorizing about) religion as a natural phenomenon. As the topic is extremely important and this is Dennett's most accessible work, I highly recommend you read it. |
|
home
