Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett (2007)

In Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett attempts to engage religious believers in a discussion of the foundations of their belief, and hopes to convince them that religion can fruitfully be made the object of scientific inquiry. Dennett focuses his attention in particular on three potential scientific investigations. First, what is it about human minds and bodies that ensures the persistence of religion in human societies? Second, what were the plausible circumstances of past environments that shaped human minds and bodies in that manner? And third, have our environmental circumstances changed sufficiently so that the biological and cultural adaptations that favored religion—which formerly benefited us—now cause positive harm to our individual and/or collective well-being? Dennett ventures tentative and plausible answers to each of these questions, but he is intellectually honest enough to admit that his speculations could be disconfirmed by the scientific research that he exhorts his fellow academics to perform.

At least purportedly, this book's target audience is composed of religious believers. I don't personally fit the bill, so in order to evaluate whether Dennett satisfactorily met his aims, I had to put myself in the mind of a believer. In particular, I imagined what my mother would say if I placed this book in her hands.

Well, as a general rule, Dennett's tone throughout is quite conciliatory towards believers, though he doesn't seek to hide his own atheism. He doesn't take Christopher Hitchens' path of piling up the corpses in religion's closet (the Crusades, etc.) for all to see. Nor does he follow Richard Dawkins in screeching about how irrational! religious beliefs are, as if that were helping matters. It is refreshing to see someone retire those old saws, and it reflects positively on Dennett's good faith in this project. On the other hand, even Dennett can get quite snippy and antagonistic in short bursts, particularly when he takes direct-address potshots at imagined stubborn believers in his readership. These ripostes are particularly common in the first three chapters, which seems to me to be a tactical error: chasing off potential readers before they have a chance to hear your good points is bad form.

Further, Dennett is perhaps not as careful with his language as would behoove him in this sort of work. There are plenty of places, particularly early on, where he makes a relatively innocuous point in language that can be foreseeably misinterpreted (whether innocently or willfully) in a manner that is either insulting to believers, or easily parried by believers. This is not a project in which I think it would be wise to rely too heavily upon the charitableness of one's audience.

My verdict is that, although it avoids many of the gaffes that left Hitchens and Dawkins preaching mostly to the choir, the early going in Breaking the Spell is still likely to scare off even those believers who might enjoy the rest of the work, which, while admittedly speculative, is worth thinking about seriously. If you find yourself recommending this book to friends who are believers, you may want to suggest that they start with Chapter 4.

I can't recommend this highly enough. This is not an anti-religion screed at all, but comes at the topic of religion as a naturally emerging aspect of humanity in a thoughtful, funny, accessible way. It is "New Atheist" only in that it calls for open questioning and research of religion and its utility (and it's written by an atheist). ( )

Darwin's Dangerous Idea is still my favorite of his, but this one was a good read. Provoked a lot of thought. I hate religion, but I still entertain arguments for their potential benefits and they won't be better defended by an atheist than Dennett offers in this book. I'm glad smart people are willing and able to speak to the issues surrounding unreasonable beliefs. ( )

(posted on my blog: http://davenichols.net/)

From the onset of this book, Dennett offers what amounts to one long argument about whether or not religion should be subjected to rational inquiry. A reasonable question, to be sure, but despite it being a legitimate point of conversation with the reader, Dennett unfortunately aims beyond the reader to a very small subset of people capable of conducting inquiries of this sort. He often asks the reader to consider questioning his/her own views and stances, but it is clear by the end of the book that his entire 'soft rant' is really directed at encouraging further research on the issue.

I like Dan Dennett a lot, and have spent many hours learning from his books, speeches, and insights (Consciousness Explained was one I rated as a 5/5, for example), but I feel like this book was a mediocre use of my time. Granted, I accept that he was preaching to the choir on his central thesis (that we should indeed submit religion to rational inquiry), but the entire book is muddled and largely filler. He ends each chapter with two paragraphs--a summary of that chapter and a preview of the next. Each subsection of each chapter starts with several quotes more-or-less on target, and uses extensive (and large) quotes from other thinkers throughout the book. The entire work quickly begins to feel like a thesis-by-committee, of which Dennett is largely acting as managing editor.

Dennett is a philosopher, so you expect some redundant passages as he hones in on specific points, but often he spends several pages belaboring an argument that (by that point) would have already been accepted or not by the reader. As a bit of frustrated research, I read only every third paragraph in one chapter and jotted down what I felt were his main points. I then reread the entire chapter in full to see if it provided any additional insight. It did not. Dennett uses a lot of filler in this book that should have been condensed or left out entirely.

In parts of the book that deserved better scientific treatment, such as his theories of the origins and evolution of religion (and religious memes), he instead breezes over the details and offers that the necessary research had not yet been done. Gah, frustrating 'insights' from a guy I much respect.

I hate his use of the term 'brights' (as I detest when any other 'bright' uses that term-- it is ridiculous and distracting and forces the reader to swallow a bit of revulsion at what the term insinuates, even when Dennett clearly defines what he means by it).

Having dragged myself through to the end, it is clear in the last chapter that Dennett really was talking past me and instead directing his book at researchers and religious leaders, pleading with them to take up his challenge and start investigating religion's many aspects, both good and bad. Again, I find myself in very broad agreement with Dennett on almost every aspect of his thesis, but his delivery and substance in Breaking leave a lot to be desired. Three stars. Not a horrible introduction to the argument, but not Dennett's best work. ( )