Books : Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

Rating: - Fills a niche.


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

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

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

---

Rating: - A Powerful Book
This is a fantastic book, which really grapples with belief and why people believe what they do. Of the four major works on atheism out there (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) this was the most thought provoking and nuanced (although Dawkins was the most forceful and clearest.) Dennett's chapter on the strength of the belief that "a belief in God" is a good thing and therefore people choose to believe in God even if it makes no sense to them is just a magnificent insight, and useful in reading other books that argue for the existence of God. So many arguments are actually arguments about "Why it would be great if God did exist" rather than whether he actually does.

The text can get just a little dense at times, but generally it's pretty easy going for a book as philosophical and thoughtful as this.

---

Rating: - Well presented and interesting at each step
This is the third book I've read from the Four Horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens. I read Hitchens immediately after this one.

Dennett takes a completely different view on religion. He considers it as a natural phenomenon. He steps carefully, but never shies away from discussing it as he sees it, that is, what does the evidence show us?

This is unlike Harris, who said, "Come on! Why are well still talking about this?" and Dawkins, who says, "These are the facts, if you don't believe me, you're stupid."

Dennett makes it very clear that he isn't out to abolish religion, just to understand it. He is also quite clear that if religion is useful and the analysis would remove that usefulness, then it would be a good argument for not continuing.

He asks how do we study religion scientifically? Should we study religion scientifically? Defense of why we should study it. What current theories tell us. Examples of how religion could have arisen. What it is. What it accomplishes. How it propagates and eventually, where to do from that point.

Of course, Dennett, as a philosopher doesn't really know and is really just giving an overview of what we know now and speculating on how these things might be related. He gives good reasons for all of his conclusion.

Some interesting statements:
- A shark and a dolphin look a lot alike but are completely different species with completely different origins. Islam and Buddhism looks a lot alike to an impartial observer (prayer, temples etc.. etc..) but might be a completely different thing with a completely different origin.

- B.F. Skinner, a behavioral psychologist in 1948 did an experiment where he stimulated pigeons with a random "click" and the drop of a food pellet. After exposure to this, pigeons began assuming that something they were doing was influencing the sound and drop of the pellet and began to do all kinds of weird movements and neck craning and dances etc... Skinner saw it as primitive religion (rain dances, sacrifices to gods etc...)

- "Belief in belief" - it isn't just about believing in God, it's also a lot about believing in the idea of belief. This seems related to the usefulness of religion.

Dennett examines religions from several viewpoints and compares them to well known ideas in genetic evolution:

- sweet tooth idea i.e. why humans' have a sweet tooth, maybe we like the "taste" or religion and it formed in a similar way.

- symbiont (the way we biologically have symbionts like bacteria in our gut, so may religion be a symbiont idea that duplicates itself and survives) - maybe religion evolved as an idea that was useful for us the same way the bacteria is

- sexual selection theory - are religious partners more stable and more sexy?

- economic theories - this is a group selection idea where religion makes a more stable group where the elite are like the top of a pyramid scheme. Economically for a group, and certain members in it, religion is good for their wallets

- Pearl theory - where religion is beautiful for its own sake
and finally

- religion may be a phenomenon or include phenomenon of human culture with no analog in genetic evolution

Overall, the book is well written, has quite a few excellent points and is well researched with many interesting twists and turns. You don't always know where Dennett is going with his analysis, but it is often interesting, even if you don't agree.

I did think that the book was unnecessarily top heavy with meme theory, which Dennett is a huge fan of. He makes his arguments for why he believes that they are worth discussing and several prominent scientists disagree with his use of memes.

I also thought that while the ideas were good, he could have used a more aggressive editor and it could have been written better with fewer words.

It was much more readable than Harris, who was dense and hard to read, but less readable than Dawkins who was very straight forward, well organized and clear. I found that it was far more subtle than the other two though and searched deeper into the phenomenon of religion.

If you want to enjoy a book on religion and God, read Hitchens, which was my favorite of the recent atheist books.

---

Rating: - A grand pep-talk...
I picked this book up at a Borders as I have recently become interested in discovering a new understanding of the universe (seeing as I have abandoned organized religion for hopes of something more real), and felt myself daunted looking at the page count. I'll be the first to admit, I am not much of an evolutionary biologist or a scientist of any kind... not at all, in fact... but I do enjoy having a base understanding of what I'm made of and what is out there with aspirations of... un-making me. I suppose that is why this book first caught my attention...

The book is MOST informative... Dennett, I have seen, is not afraid in the slightest of citing himself, but at the same time shows tremendous respect for numerous other both contemporary and past scientists (thus, I guess the copious and seemingly self-centered mention of his own work can be forgiven). I suppose what I originally thought this book would provide was a profound, confounding, and enlightening, single statement that would verify my own inner atheism and help me come out, guns a'blaze, into the open air of mainstream "disbelief". I did not find this... but then again, I suppose Dennett never ACTUALLY promises something like this insofar as I originally expected (and hoped?) He seems to be delivering more of a symposium on hypocrisy and the carefully camoflaged persecution and prejudice against those who might have intellectual qualms against mainstream religious behavior... encouraging, of course, but as I said, not more to me than just a pep-talk.

I liked the book, most assuredly, and intend to look for some of the authors he recommends (namely Dawkins)... will this book turn you into an atheist? More than likely, no ... at least not in my opinion. But! It will definitely bore its way into the thinking centers of a intellectually religious brain.

---

Rating: - The God Delusion and Breaking the Spell
If you're only going to read one of Dawkins' The God Delusion or Dennett's Breaking the Spell :

Read The God Delusion to explore the God existence question and the case that atheists should get out of the closet to advocate for a world without religion.

Read Breaking the Spell to explore using scientific method to understand, validate, and develop ideas about religion and its pervasiveness. Ultimately, to build an understanding on how to exist and progress with religionists.


Here is a brief summary of Breaking the Spell's 11 chapters :

1. Breaking Which Spell? - Religions are among the most powerful phenomena on the planet and it is important for us to better understand them as we move into the 21st century

2. Questions About Science - Makes the case that science is a valid tool for exploring religion. (If you're not willing to accept this, you probably don't want to buy this book.) Dennett uses a comparison between music and religions to draw some interesting parallels.

3. Why Good Things Happen - Why natural selection is relevant to the formation and development of religions.

4. The Roots of Religion - Exploration of how folk religions might have formed in human prehistory.

5. Religion, the Early Days - How did religions survive and the role of the "shaman" in perpetuating them.

6. The Evolution of Stewardship - What are the features that allow religions to become formalized? Especially secrecy, deception and intentional design to resist even the start of a challenge.

7. The Invention of Team Spirit - Exploration of group dynamics and religion

8. Belief in Belief - Makes the case that not just belief, but belief in the value of belief, has become an important part of modern religions and culture. This becomes one of the main reasons that even religious professionals cannot explain what they are professing. He then spends a few pages at the end of this chapter describing why he is an atheist.

9. Toward a Buyer's Guide to Religion - Argues that religion should be considered for its value to people. First several protective barriers need to be penetrated such as love/loyalty blindness and academic territoriality.

10. Morality and Religion - Addresses the common opinion that religion is the basis for morality and concludes that it is "problematic at best". There is a lot of overlap in this chapter with The God Delusion Chapter 6 - The Roots of Morality: Why are we good?.

11. Now What Do We Do - Dennett wraps up his book by advocating that the many questions and theories raised be refined and tested with scientific method. He also makes the case to increase religious education so that children learn about all religions so that they can make informed decisions.


For me, Breaking the Spell is a great book, not so much for its answers, but for its questions:

How much can religion be compared with music as a cultural/evolutionary phenomenon? How is religious loyalty like sports team loyalty? How is being in love with a religion like romantic love? Could it be damaging to society to de-mystify religion? Why do religions often have "father" figures? Could religion, like sweet foods, be a good thing to a moderate extent? Could religion be a parasitical evolutionary phenomenon? How does the evolution of language and religion inter-relate? Memory and religion? Why is there secrecy in religion? Does fundamentalism "market" better? Why is faith for its own sake considered so valuable? Which is more fundamental - morality or religion? How is religion like a swimming pool (attractive nuisance)? Do moderates enable/encourage radicals? Is it really possible to have a society that lets children choose their religion?