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. ( )

Dennett, one of the '4 horsemen' of new atheism (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are the other 3), details the evils of religion. ( )

[Reviewed in my blog at http://www.sea-of-flowers.ca/weblog/s...]

Daniel C. Dennett's 2006 book Breaking the Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon reached the bookstores a few months ahead of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

Breaking the Spell is reasonably long, at 412 pages after the end notes, well-researched, and current. He doesn't spend much time on philosophical questions about the existence of God or the nature of truth, except to say that there are no convincing arguments that religion should not be studied and its claims to truthiness tested. (He doesn't actually say truthiness). Nor does he spend too much time on the idea, popular in religious studies and the literary humanities, that trashing religion is out of bounds because religion it adds meaning to human life or the argument that studying religion scientifically disrespects feelings. He argues that there is a social benefit gain in demystifying religion. I am not sure about that one. Modern living tends to destroy social connections, leaving people searching for therapies and entertainments to soothe their anxieties.

He doesn't make the conventional atheist arguments about the irrationality of belief, religion as opiate of the masses, religion as mass illusion or delusion, religion as the cause of war and oppression, or religion as the construct of parasitic priests. He appears to regard these arguments as too speculative to explain why religion happens, and probably too stale.

He pays more attention to sociology, like Rodney Stark's use of rational choice theory in the study of successful religions. He pays a lot of attention to the work of linguists and anthropologists Dan Sperber, Scott Atran, and Pascal Boyer. He mentions Jared Diamond a lot and Steven Pinker a few times.

While his main theme is that religion is a natural human activity which can be studied and explained scientifically, he also has some theories. He suggests that human thinking tends to attribute intentionality to natural events, a particular aspect of social living and consciousness, which he calls the intentional stance. He likes to point out that religion, historically has been bound to culture - everyone seems to know the religious stories on the basis of common knowledge, but very few understand the stories or can respond to enquiries. He points out that anthropologists have started to realize that people make things up when they are questioned about their gods.

He also has adopted memes to explain the way that religious stories and ideas perpetuate themselves across cultures and across time. In fact, in dealing with Sperber, Atran and Boyer, he acknowledges that they don't accept memes, but he appropriates and translates their ideas into his own memetic theory of religion and culture.

He tries to persuade by jovial, common sense arguments. He loads his arguments with rhetorical questions, and he seems to be too chatty on some issues. The impression is that he is genuinely thoughtful and making a serious effort to communicate respectfully.

He appears to be writing for Brights, and promoting a Bright perspective. To the extent that he avoids Dawkins' more forceful perspective, he demonstrates a difference in persuasive tactics. Dawkins is determined to beat his foes down with the force of his words. Dennett relies on the sticking power of a cheery presentation of oddly memorable ideas. I would say that he is more tuned to cultural issues than Dawkins, and a more discerning judge of workable memes. ( )

Dr. Dennett is a professor of philosophy at Tufts University. As the jacket points out, this is "not an anti-religious screed, but rather an eye-opening exploration of the role that religious belief plays in our lives, our interactions, and our country." Following Dawkins and others, he explores the foundations and historicity of morality and the continuing reasons for continued bleief in Bronze Age mythologies.