Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
(Click here)
Book Reviews of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
Book Review: Religion under the spotlight of reason, and that's as it should be!
Summary: 4 Stars
Philosopher Daniel Dennett has undertaken to treat the phenomenon of religion as a subject of close scientific scrutiny. The big question would have to be: Is it worth it? As a comparatively truculent atheist myself, I might well have been quick to say no, since quite frankly I think of religion as a lot of medieval claptrap that humankind ought to just scrape off, unceremoniously, like a barnacle, so that we can get on with our lives in the real world. But Dennett is an atheist of an infinitely more patient sort in his approach, taking the view that as the vast majority of humankind is immensely taken with religion, it demands genuine scrutiny, though it certainly doesn't deserve the sort of "pass" it usually gets automatically. The significance of the book's title is that Dennett breaks two distinct spells--(1) the spell of religion's usual (but specious) immunity to rational examination and (2) the spell that religion itself casts, due to childhood indoctrination, over the majority of humanity in the form of one belief-system or another.
Wisely, he defines religion as a social system revolving around belief in some kind of supernatural entity whom it is regarded as necessary to revere. It is indeed the essence of religion that it is a sociological phenomenon--we all expect to be expected by everyone else to be religious, and belief-systems are collective entities fueled by peer pressure and fear. Early on, Dennett acknowledges that many believers chafe mightily at any suggestion that their beliefs might actually be examined rationally, but he says, in effect, that's too bad, because religion is just another phenomenon that one not only can but must place under the microscope-lens of scientific exploration. If it can't survive such scrutiny, tough! In this respect he sides with Richard Dawkins in rejecting the late Stephen Jay Gould's notion that religion and science carve out "nonoverlapping magisteria" placing religion outside the reach of science. Dennett embraces instead the observation that "God" is a scientific hypothesis about the universe-- as Dawkins says, a universe with a god would be quite different from a universe without one--a scientific hypothesis that, like any other such hypothesis, must all be put to the question. And Dennett does so in intricate detail and with consummate skill. I must admit that when one is used to the delectably strident tones of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, one may at first find Dennett a bit soft-spoken, but he gets the job done nonetheless, and does it in a way that religionists are going to be hard put to dismiss out of hand.
This remarkable work covers too much ground for any review of reasonable length to deal with in the detail the book deserves. Suffice it to say Dennett regards religion as a cultural phenomenon shaped by the memetic and evolutionary forces of natural selection, and gives the phenomenon its day in court. While acknowledging that religion does things for people that they seem to need, he stresses that the same benefits are available elsewhere without indulgence in delusion. He entertains a number of theories as to the sociological nature of religion, including the idea (my particular favorite) that it is "a malignant feature of human culture, a childhood disease of sorts with lingering aftereffects."
In the wake of this book no religious apologist ever again should be able to get away with saying that we unbelievers have never given the nature of religion a fair look. Clearly, one can look and still reject it in the end, as Professor Dennett demonstrates with honesty, fairness, and lucidity of style.
Book Review: Breaking the spell-- of naturalism
Summary: 2 Stars
Dennett writes that . . . [many readers] will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions [the religious ones], and they are dead right about that-- that's what I am and that's exactly what I'm trying to do" (p. 53) He might as well admit it; it's obvious.
But at the same time, he wants to maintain the academic spell which still leads many Americans to regard academics as disinterested, apolitical truth-seekers. He is not worried about breaking THAT spell because he thinks he is being scrupulously fair in approaching his hypothesis that religion is a purely natural phenomenon. Investigating that hypothesis, he assures us, "doesn't prejudge the verdict that [the phenomena of religion] are [purely natural]" (p. 25). The verdict could go either way. But, it turns out, the only way supernaturalism can win is if science shows itself to be "utterly unable to account for the [religious] phenomena" (p. 26). Dennett freely admits that his book does not, by itself, provide such an account. Mocking the state of Georgia decision to place stickers on biology texts saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact," Dennett says that he will happily allow a sticker warning that his book is a theory, not a fact. You see, more research needs to be done. But the only God Dennett will allow is a "God of the gaps." And while there may still be many gaps in our naturalistic understanding of religion, Dennett and others are enthusiastically working on them, so-- for now-- religious belief is unjustified. In fact, nothing religion can do would justify faith, which will remain unjustifiable until science decides to quit. What could make science throw in the towel? If the answer is "nothing," then science loses because it has become unfalsifiable (untestable). Dennett therefore courageously sticks his neck out and announces that he will acknowledge defeat if a double-blind randomized prayer test shows that people who are prayed for have significantly better medical outcomes (p. 275) What could be more fair? True, religious folks might worry that this test violates the prohibition on tempting the Lord, but, hey, if they chicken out, is that Dennett's fault?
But there is a more serious problem than Dennett's ludicrous attempt to peddle his naturalism as unbiased. Religion does not require a God of the gaps. That means that even if science can explain religious behavior biologically or memetically, that does not rule out God. The idea that science and God are engaged in a zero-sum game was weakly rejected by Stephen Jay Gould in ROCKS OF AGES, earning him Dennett's displeasure-- for rejecting it at all (p. 30). It is strongly opposed by Rodney Stark (in THE VICTORY OF REASON), who argues that science flourished in the West not in spite of Christianity but because of it. But Stark is a sociologist, and Dennett has an undisguised contempt for sociologists who resist biology because they think they are in a zero-sum game with it! But what about Francis Collins, who was former head of the Human Genome Project and became a Christian as an adult? Does Dennett want to accuse Collins of resisting biological knowledge out of fear of breaking his crutch? Collins is surely a sty in the devil's eye. Oh, I'm not calling Dennett a devil, by which I do not mean an evil one but simply a non-believer. Dennett calls himself a "bright"-- excusing the apparent arrogance on the grounds that he did not invent the term. It doesn't mean someone who is intelligent or imply that believers are Neanderthals-- it just means a non-believer. Fine. Then he shouldn't mind being a devil, too.
There is irony in Dennett's use of William James, whose THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE Dennett holds up as a good early example of the scientific study of religion. Yes, James was not afraid to examine religion empirically. But does Dennett realize that James was more interested in breaking the spell of skepticism than the spell of religion? That's why he wrote THE WILL TO BELIEVE, which somehow doesn't make it into Dennett's bibliography. In it he says, "To preach scepticism to us as a duty until `sufficient evidence' for religion be found, is tantamount . . . to telling us, when in the presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our fear of its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down its law. And by what, forsooth, is the supreme wisdom of this passion warranted?" I think he's asking you, Professor.
Finally, Dennett is worried that his fair-minded examination of religion may get him a punch in the nose (p. 257). If, after reading my review, anyone is inclined to punch him in the nose, please don't.
Book Review: approaching a forbidden subject
Summary: 5 Stars
Dennett encourages us to scrutinize religious behaviors with the same critical skills we apply to other human behaviors. Patiently and politely, he builds the case that moral behavior is not dependent on theology and a belief in a supernatural God. Atheists may exhibit the same range of moral behaviors as religious believers.
As to immoral behaviors, those who claim to interpret the will of God should not be exempt from scrutiny or from legal consequences. Chapter 10 is an especially good statement of Dennett's case.
Book Review: Should we break the spell?
Summary: 4 Stars
I didn't quite get the purpose of this book. I saw it as an evaluation as to whether or not we ought to study religion as a natural process, in the view that in the future we may have a sufficient explanation to not only understand but control and "break the spell" of religion if it is found that we ought to leave religion in the past. For example, if we find that religion is, on the balance, a negative, we ought not to allow the status quo to continue.
So far there has already been a start into the scientific study of religion, by anthropologists such as Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran and others. There are also studies of the neuroscience of religious thought, belief and practice. So Daniel's question is a bit too late. Whether people like it or not, science is studying religion as a natural phenomenon.
A novel idea in this book is the notion that we ought to teach our children religion objectively. That is to say we should not give special treatment to any particular religion but show the various beliefs many people have around the world. The effect being that children should be exposed to other world views apart from those in which they are raised in - promoting tolerance and freethought.
Book Review: Arrogance Personified
Summary: 1 Stars
How to describe this book;
It's a bit like the wolf forwarding a written apology to a lamb reassuring the lamb that he is not acting on the basest of instincts and that it's all really the lambs fault anyway for being a lamb before he devours him.
Only standing behind the wolf is a tiger.
I have been avoiding reading any books by the "New Atheists" because I was aware of their arguments second hand and did not want the stress of hearing arguments from those who obviously hate Christianity, and perhaps of hearing something which would test my faith. I needn't have worried. There is nothing in this book that caused me to question my belief in Christianity. In fact 80% of it is turgid tripe rehashing the most obvious of arguments and giving them a little evolutionary twist as if this is enough to render the argument beyond all contention.
Dennett seems to miss the irony of referring to himself as a "bright" and then advancing arguments characterized by simple obvious concepts surrounded by "great insights" delivered by evolutionary theory. The whole is supported by dubious and often odious comparisons meant to suggest that religion is a virus with possible negative consequences to all who are stupid enough to believe in such supernatural nonsense. He repeatedly suggests that religion is probably bad but may have good consequences, giving himself an air of balance. However it is obvious he would be on shaky ground if he did otherwise, given the extraordinary violence and delusion which has attended those hostile to religious supernatural belief from the French Revolution onward.
The great problem here with Dennett is that he assumes almost godlike moral superiority in his discussion of religion. His dismissal of all supernatural phenomena in his explanation of religion shows a high minded fanaticism which conjures images of "brights" storming the citadels of religion and smashing icons of primitive destructive unscientific belief like some latter day san-culottes, bolshevik or national socialist. His confidence in science is total and he seems oblivious to what a nonsensical position this is. His statement on page 60 that "evolution is about as well established as the fact that water is H20" is simply embarrassing. Science has often been influenced by politics and still is. In fact evolution is still a theory with a great deal of proof wanting, which hardly makes it as certain as H20.
In fact this book often has the arrogant tone of a polemicist rather than the measured tone of a scientist, and this from a philosopher who purports to use science to explain religion. Another indication of this is the way all religions are booted into one, and the worst aspects of the most fly by night new age nonsense are implied to the great established religions. Thus all divine influence is excluded and all religions are given the same tawdry beginnings.
When is an ant like an elephant like a slug like a microbe like a tree? Oh, of course, let's lump all religions together and impute the worst aspects of each to them all! Mr Dennett also finds it difficult to imagine that some religions might be closer to the truth than others. Relativism really has had a negative effect on the humanities if he is seriously proposing this is the case.