Defenitely not recommended for those who would feel uneasy at the presentation of incisive questions regarding the cultural aspect of religious thought. Not for the religiously faint hearted. ( )

He brings up a valid point on scientific means of investigating religion. But it's a hard read. It is, after all, written by a philosopher, and as such, each and every nuance is carefully based upon, and built upon, each preceding argument. There is a lot of back and forth, and make sure to keep an extra bookmark in the appendices. The only gripe I have is that his thesis will probably never reach fruition. ( )

Daniel Dennett is an American writer and cognitive scientist. He is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Source: Wikipedia
"Religion has elicited the best and worst in the human character, from selflessness to fanaticism. But until now few books have tried to investigate it in a scientific manner. 'Breaking the Spell' is the daring and--inevitably--controversial exception. Ranging through biology, history, and psychology, Daniel C. Dennett asks: Is religion a product of blind evolutionary instinct or rational choice? Is it truly the best way to live a moral life? Is religion good for you? Not an antireligious screed but an unblinking look beneath the veil of orthodoxy.The result is essential reading for believers and skeptics alike." Source: the book's back cover.

This was a challenge. I kept putting it aside after reading a few pages, picking it up and digesting a bit more, until about six years ago when I tucked it in my night stand for what I thought would only be a little while. Well...nearly five years ago we had a fire. This was one of maybe 19-20 books I salvaged out of our 5,800 books in our library that were damaged severely due to smoke and soot. After a couple of years of airing out, I let it sit still longer until I picked it up again last year. I had to start over, having most of the thoughts and memories shoved aside, though I kept my flags and my margin notes were intact.

I like Dennett. I think he made a lot of sense, but I also get the sense that this was not as rigorous as his other offerings. Still, I adjusted my perspective on religion years ago because of it (and another book by Pascal Boyer). While I still consider religions and associated beliefs irrational, I have come to an understanding that such is genetically encoded - humans are primed to believe in that which makes no rational sense. That helps me sleep better at night (cliche...I still suck at sleeping) - even if I still don't get it.

This is not a "review". Just a short observation of something that will take much more thought. I owe Dennett a full review, but I admit I'm not up to it right now. ( )

The author attempts to kindly encourage religious people as well as non-religious people to read his book. He spends a great deal of time trying to be pleasant and thoughtful of those who are religious. I think his efforts while in some ways noble are inappropriate. While he exposes the fallacy of religion to be considered as a motivating factor for morality he does not clearly indicate that religions are detrimental to society and are pernicious. Much of the authors words in the book are spent providing efforts to explain his thoughts by example. I found this somewhat of a waste of words, since much of the examples are not needed to make the point. I suppose that some may find it helpful. I am glad the book was written and applaud the overall concepts and principals of the book. ( )