He spend the bulk of the book fleshing out a popularly-oriented review of theories on the evolution and social impacts of religion, making liberal use of the meme concept he finds so useful. While it is primarily a summary of prior research and an identification of the key open questions in the debate, Dennett doesn't hesitate to flesh the picture out with a starting hypothesis: the one he considers the most persuasive.
This is interesting, but not the sort of thing I'd normally go out of my way to read. Yet it was a true joy to read, for many reasons. Dennett is just a really clear thinker, a wonderful writer who has many nice turns of phrase half the pages I dog-eared are just for some clever way of articulating a thought I've had or might use. His thoughts on science - what it is, why it is, and how it can be used in social and cultural contexts, are particularly clear and exciting.
I considered for the first time that teaching a child religion might be a form of child abuse. I learned that there might be bio-evolutionary reasons why religions develop and that when we come to see that religion is invented, we need to remember to be gentle with others who might not have seen that.
Nonetheless, we owe it to ourselves to consider the costs of religion. It might be that it harms our world more than helps it. If religions were based in fact, we would have to accept that. Since t I considered for the first time that teaching a child religion might be a form of child abuse.
Since they cannot be proven to be based in fact, we don't have to accept the harm they do. I now call myself a "bright", that is, someone who accepts that the material world has no creator, no supernatural power. Despite having completed more than a year of studies toward the ministry, I feel relieved by this new awareness.
I am a secular humanist. If the world is going to be improved, I now believe it will be because we did the necessary work to make it better. There is no deux ex machina. No god will come save the day. The book is full of quotations from other authors. Two I particularly liked are: "It was the schoolboy who said, 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion. At the end of each chapter, Dennet provides a summary of the chapter you've just read and an overview of what's to come in the next chapter. View all 5 comments. May 31, Mike rated it it was ok. It was certainly interesting, and its chief thesis is worth contemplating.
I think that were it less philosophical i. I sound like my students now in saying that I think it could have been written with the same or greater effectiveness in about a third of the pages, but in this case it's true. He elaborates in a way that seems more self-indulgent than illuminating.
I don't know, I It was certainly interesting, and its chief thesis is worth contemplating. I don't know, I didn't read the book in the best way. I set it down for too long, and rather than starting over as I should have I picked up where I left off, and that discontinuity diminished my impression of the book, I think. One thing that IS interesting, though, is he differs greatly from the othr New Atheists in his lack of confidence that religious propositions can be tested, though he's all about testing scientifically-framed religious questions.
But whereas most of the other New Atheists seem to think that religion is at least understandable and therefore subject to falsification, Dennett's view, rather, is that most religious propositions mean almost literally nothing. That they are pronouncements very much in the vein of a non-latin speaker reciting a verse of Latin. Just sounds. Comforting sounds. And he argues, more, that most people don't believe in God, but they believe in belief in God.
The problem is that there are good spells and then there are bad spells. If only some timely phone call could have interrupted the proceedings at Jonestown in Guyana in , when the lunatic Jim Jones was ordering his hundreds of spellbound followers to commit suicide!
If only we could have broken the spell that enticed the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo to release sarin gas in a Tokyo subway, killing a dozen people and injuring thousands more! If only we could figure out some way today to break t The problem is that there are good spells and then there are bad spells.
If only we could figure out some way today to break the spell that lures thousands of poor young Muslim boys into fanatical madrassahs where they are prepared for a life of murderous martyrdom instead of being taught about the modern world, about democracy and history and science!
If only we could break the spell that convinces some of our fellow citizens that they are commanded by God to bomb abortion clinics! In this book, Daniel Dennett pleads for intensifying scientific research into religion as a natural phenomenon. We have waited too long to do this and nowadays we see ourselves confronted with issues of which we lack the essential insights to make informed decisions.
For example, in combating islamic terrorism, we are awfully short on scientific facts to base our policies on. This book is in essence a two-sided project. First and foremost Dennett wants to break the spell of religion. Religions h In this book, Daniel Dennett pleads for intensifying scientific research into religion as a natural phenomenon. Believers all over the world claim to be offended by critical probing into their convictions and the effects of those convictions on society as a whole.
This is what Dennett sees as the spell that has to be broken. Another spell that has to be broken is the timeless and tiresome linkage between belief and goodness this is the origin of religious hatred against atheism and the association between spiritualism and morality only spirituality - of which religion is perceived to be only one form - can offer you a good and meaningful life. The 'belief in belief' and the 'belief in spiritualism' are claimed to be moral and good, but in reality both of those beliefs are selfish and childish.
It's time to break this spell as well! The second goal of Breaking the Spell is to synthesize the different strands of scientific theories on religion and to offer a preliminary model of religion, to be investigated further - via the scientific method.
In part 1 of the book Dennett explains why the spell needs to be broken 21st century problems , how science can offer help in making informed policies and decisions regarding religion and how our investigations should proceed. Basically, we should ask ourselves Cui Bono? Dennett shows convincingly that religion doesn't have to offer benefits to its believers, it can either be a parasitic, symbiont or neutral complex of memes.
In part 2, Dennett gives an oversight of the current science of religion and synthesizes this into an explanation how it is that religion is a universal cultural trait.
Human beings use the 'intentional stance' to attribute agency to other humans and all sorts of natural objects that move. We seem to have 'hyperactive agent detection devices' - the continued mental triggering of alarms signalling agents wherever we look.
Some of these imaginary agents can be used as decision aids divination , others can be used as shaman's tools health maintenance. Because these mental constructs are memes, they have been subjected to - conscious as well as unconscious - revision and design, i. Rituals, music and storytelling - in our eyes extravagant religious displays - were tools to transmit information we are talking about times before the invention of writing.
Shamanic traditions were possibly helpful interventions, playing on our natural dispositions. For example, there's evidence that the presence of hope in a sick person triggers fierce immunological responses, thereby increasing the chances of recovery we are talking about times before the invention of pills or surgery.
The next step in Dennett's explanation of religion is that people became stewards of the religious ideas that entered them, domesticating these ideas and thereby bringing a new dimension to the Cui Bono? Some of the features that emerged from this religious design are secrecy, deception and systematic invulnerability to disconfirmation thereby giving these stewards powers they wouldn't otherwise be able to wield.
This stage in the evolution of religion is tightly connected to the adaption of agricultural practices ca. The last stage in the evolution of religion is the interplay between religious memes and our human need for group forming: because of language and culture, religion could serve as a marker for in-group friendliness and out-group hostility.
Because of trade networks and the dispersion of knowledge, a marketplace for religious ideas originated. Different designed systems competing for adherents with different needs and tastes. This is why rationalistic economic theories, in combination with memetics, are our best shots at explaining the existence of so many different creeds.
The result of this evolution of religion is that we ended up with a 'belief in belief'. Even though most people might not be religious anymore in any way that makes sense , the consensus is still that belief is associated with morality and goodness. This makes it hard for atheists to combat religion, because 'belief in belief' ensures immunity to religious creeds, even though the defendants in question might not even be religious themselves.
We have to break the spell that belief is necessary, or indeed sufficient, for an intellectually fulfilled and meaningful life.
In part 3, Dennett offers his comments on some loose ends. We should chart the pros and cons of religion in an honest attempt to develop a metaphorical Buyer's Guide to Religions. He argues that the academic smokescreen, upholded by postmodern, neo-Marxist social scientists, has to be annihilated first.
After this, there are two questions to ask: 1 Is religion beneficial to people? There's no evidence in favour for this. There are some health benefits, but other studies show that prayer for patients created higher levels of stress, leading to lower recovery rates. If there would be evidence to the claim that religion offers health benefits, we would know them by now, since religious organizations would be the first to bring the news. This simply can be answered with 'no'.
Descriptively speaking, morality has biological and cultural roots, and prescriptively speaking, religion has no claim to the moral high ground.
If morals are just prudence I do as god tells me, because I will get a heavenly reward , then religion is dangerous. If morals are good in and of itself, then religion is simply not necessary; at best it hinders our efforts to get to universal human moral and rights. In the final chapter, Dennett asks us to use his model and predictions as a stepping stone to scientific knowledge on religion as a natural phenomenon, in order to create well-guided policies to combat the religious delusions that endanger the entire world in the 21st century.
One of Dennett's building blocks is education on all! Another building block is to get the religious moderates to speak out against the fanatics in their midst, and destroying the barrier that they have built around their ideas: only constantly critizing ideas can combat extremism - religious moderates stand in the way, always claiming they're offended.
I re-read this book, after reading it some years ago. I can remember I found it a dull book, but on my second reading it offered me some gems of insight.
Maybe I just wasn't open-minded enough back then. In any case, this is a decent book not one his best that conveys a very important message. I found that most if his predictions and claims have withstood the test of time and that some of them seem even more urgent now as back in when this book was published.
Apr 14, Rebekah Kohlhepp rated it it was amazing Shelves: my-bookshelf. I really appreciate it because this is the only one of the four books that I think a religious person really could read and be left contemplating their beliefs and not just thoroughly offended. Dennett spends the first part of the book explaining whether or not it would be appropriate for a non-religious scholar to study the sociological aspects of religion.
Sep 29, Gendou rated it really liked it Shelves: philosophy , non-fiction , atheism. His goal in this book is to break the taboo protecting religion from reasoned examination. Unlike the other atheist author like Dawkins or Hitchens, Dennett goes to great lengths to maintain a congenial and fair treatment of religion. This is commendable, but cripples his thesis. Instead of presenting the ample evidence that religion is bad and does harm, Dennett calls for "further study".
In the end, I felt like he didn't go far enough, but it was a fun ride. Dennett's overuse abuse of parenthesis His goal in this book is to break the taboo protecting religion from reasoned examination. Dennett's overuse abuse of parenthesis like this makes for a very difficult and confusing read. Oct 01, Matt rated it did not like it Shelves: the-worst-books-i-have-ever-read.
This gentleman writes like a college freshman. Rambles off on tangents constantly. Spends his first pages re-stating the purpose of the book, while wondering if he should, in fact, write the book. Feb 28, Damon Gubler rated it it was amazing Shelves: book-club. Probably my favorite book club book so far. I'd give it a 4. This is a great book IMO for the religious or non-religious just for the questions that he poses. Lots to think on and he does it in a very gentle way.
Oct 28, Robert Narojek rated it really liked it. A great book, maybe sometimes too talkative and contains numerous repetitions, which, I think, takes into account the habits of the American reader several times and slowly but reads well. I especially recommend to those who are open to dialogue with believers and discussion without conversion.
Jan 10, Todd Martin rated it liked it Shelves: atheism-religion-philosophy. In other words, he examines the evolutionary, sociological and psychological factors that served to make religion ubiquitous among Homo sapiens. The only people who could take offense to the book are those with chips on their shoulders who have already decided that a rational discussion of religion is a topic forbidden from examination.
So what is Dennett claiming? Agency is the sense that there is a consciousness responsible for specific actions. This heuristic mental shortcut works well much of the time. However, this approach goes awry when agency is associated with natural events … for example - my crops failed because the spirits were offended by something I did or failed to do. Religion spreads through stories, and only the best stories survive. Much like evolution through natural selection the weakest ideas are culled from the herd while the fittest persist.
Some of the means used by religions to make themselves more robust as memes include: ceremony, ritual, music, recitation, celebration, repetition and basically everything else you associate with a church service.
More recently churches have turned to marketing of their product much like is done for other commercial products or services. Some people believe in god, but many more including some atheists feel belief, in and of itself is a good thing.
This god is an ineffable being about which no claims can be made and thus is made immune from being disproven. Believers will do things when they think they are alone that they would never do if their mother was standing in the room watching them.
This, despite the fact that they presumably believe god is watching them at all times. Believers grieve differently at a funeral than they do at the airport when seeing a loved one off. This, despite the fact that in both situations they presumably believe they will be reunited with those departing in the not-too-distant future.
The fraction of believers who renounce material possessions and dedicate their lives to helping the poor is vanishingly small, despite the fact that it is instructed that they do so in their holy books.
Believers who receive a diagnosis of a terminal illness do not celebrate as if they had won the lottery even though it means they will soon arrive in an otherworldly paradise of peacefulness and bliss. Instead, they react with shock and horror in the same manner as an atheist who is fully aware that no afterlife exists.
People who desperately wish for something to be true, will fervently do their best to believe it to be true. But reality intrudes. So, what about the book itself? As a philosopher Dennett is trained to ask probing and insightful questions. His informal, chatty and meandering style seemed to take forever to get around to the point. I suspect he is writing with the religious adherent in mind and is attempting to carefully and patiently convince them to question their preconceived beliefs.
But I found this approach frustrating … like toying with a loose Band-Aid I kept wishing he'd just get on with it and tear it off already. Jul 21, Dennis Littrell rated it it was amazing. Not likely to break the spell! Professor Dennett is a philosopher and an expert on consciousness who writes from the perspective of a Darwinian. He is an atheist and calls himself a "bright," an unfortunate coinage from the redoubtable Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine.
I say unfortunate because those who do not identify themselves similarly might feel that they should be thought of as--shall we say--less than bright. Such self-designating and flattering terminology, however agreeable to those Not likely to break the spell! Such self-designating and flattering terminology, however agreeable to those using it, only serves to isolate them from others--but perhaps that is the point. Putting that aside, I also need to put aside another of Dennett's mostly irrelevant preoccupations in this otherwise carefully considered and nearly exhaustive examination of religion, namely that of the power of memes.
Coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene , a meme is, on the one hand, a fancy word for "idea" and the results of ideas, and on the other hand, a kind of cultural gene or virus that replicates itself through the activities of living things, especially humans. Here's the way Dennett expresses it: "The idea of memes promises And, yes, religion can be seen as a meme.
However I think his purpose in this book would have been better served if he had narrowed his focus and concentrated exclusively on religion as a natural phenomenon.
And it is that, and Dennett makes a convincing case for scientists to respect something so natural to humans. What he doesn't do is make the case for an end to religion. What he wants is for those in our various religions to have the courage to openly examine their beliefs, tenets and practices and the effect they have on society as a whole. The question, is religion a good or a bad thing?
At any rate, its clear that he believes if such an examination were conducted there would be fewer true believers in the world and less pain and suffering. But religion is not going to go away because religion and humans are as intermixed as the yoke and white of a scrambled egg.
For most people a religion is like a thought in your mind. You cannot long be without one. Dennett doesn't care for this idea, I suspect, since he declares that his beliefs do not constitute a religion. A "religion" is a way of life. Tracing the derivation in Webster's International Dictionary the venerable and highly respected Second Edition one has to wade through several hundred words before arriving at "8b Acceptance and devotion to such an ideal as a standard for one's own life.
Of course some people do not have a religion since they live willy-nilly, from one impulse to the next without much foresight or appreciation for past events. But such people are in the minority; indeed they are, in a sense, children. Dennett calls the reader's attention to the evils and dangers of religion at length while at the same time giving religion its due as a sometime force for good in this world. But much of the good that religion does is seen by Dennett as the result of something like a placebo effect, and would benefit humankind regardless of the "truth" of the religion.
He acknowledges studies that show that "regular churchgoers live longer, are less likely to have heart attacks, and so forth Religion also has utility, Dennett allows, because it strengthens people psychologically in some circumstances by giving them resolution and confidence, regardless of the fact that their confidence is based on nothing real.
Religion may also help people by creating or strengthening "bonds of trust that permit groups of individuals to act together much more effectively. Indeed my contention is that this is the major reason that those of us living today have a built-in propensity to believe without evidence, because those that didn't died out because they were defeated by tribes that got their warriors to die for the cause in the name of their God. Dennett doesn't explore this path--although he does mention it--probably because he finds "group selection" troublesome.
I wish I had the space to go into more of the many interesting points that Dennett makes or to quibble with some of his conclusions. The book is fascinating and--even though Dennett, as usual, is intent on leaving nothing out--it is readable and lively, more so than some of his other books. Sep 24, Mark Lawry rated it it was amazing. I grew up in the Christian world. My wife in the Muslim world. We both had given up on our respective faiths just in time to find each other.
Praise God we did, and life got great. How that happened for both of us would be a very long book. It would probably be very similar to this one. The culture that best represents my wife and I is freedom. Which is to say we don't need walls around us to "defend our culture.
Jul 27, Rowland Pasaribu rated it liked it. Whoever would have guessed the pineapple had such an interesting history. It's early association with the explorations of new worlds and the wonder of new new tastes and the marvels of an expanding concept of geography made it tremendously appealing to the royalty and the rich of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
No costs were spared to possess, and indeed to cultivate this amazing and delicate treasure. Although a bit over informed by the end of the book I was, never-the-less entertained Whoever would have guessed the pineapple had such an interesting history. Although a bit over informed by the end of the book I was, never-the-less entertained by the stories of this fruit's conquest of the west. Breaking The Spell by Daniel C. Dennett Penguin Group Ok some people are just smart. And sometimes it is so gratifying to find that a smart person has put into words the way you have felt all along.
And done it to rigorous academic standards. Could a man who routinely practiced such cruelty also be insightful? By: Joel F. With a close and erudite reading of the major religious texts, he documents the ways in which religion is a man-made wish, a cause of dangerous sexual repression, and a distortion of our origins in the cosmos.
Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally. How can it be possible that the world we see is not objective reality? And how can our senses be useful if they are not communicating the truth? Hoffman grapples with these questions and more over the course of this eye-opening work. By: Donald Hoffman.
For all the thousands of books that have been written about religion, few until this one have attempted to examine it scientifically: to ask why - and how - it has shaped so many lives so strongly. Is religion a product of blind evolutionary instinct or rational choice?
Is it truly the best way to live a moral life? Ranging through biology, history, and psychology, Daniel C. Not an antireligious creed but an unblinking look beneath the veil of orthodoxy, Breaking the Spell will be read and debated by believers and skeptics alike.
Excellent introduction to the objective study of religion and belief. Dennett is surely the most gentle of the new atheists, almost annoyingly so to someone like myself who read happily through Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. I realize I am not the only audience here, however.
Dennett doesn't spend much if any time making the atheism argument - the book is an intellectual defense of his proposed study of religion as a natural phenomenon. Rather than a book about atheism, this is more like a book on the lens through which atheists see the world and the great problems of civilization. Too cautious to foresee all the possible objections that believers may have, the author introduces his subject on at least four chapters before actually addressing it.
They are four very interesting chapters, though. Save that little critique, Dennett makes a very good case for the scientific study of religion as a phenomenon.
A must for every intellectually honnest citizen of the world. This is nothing less than a path of inquiry to cure the most dangerous disease of humanity.
We can win the War on Terror by finding the cure to a shared delusion that threatens our very existence: Unbridled Religiosity! If you could sum up Breaking the Spell in three words, what would they be?
Insightful, Accessible and Spell-binding not to be too cheeky. What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative? Thoroughly, this book hits the points so often touched upon by his contemporaries M. Shermer, J. Campbell, K. Armstrong, S. Pinker, etc. Colorful analogies and examples abound.
I am always wary of readers compromising a beloved author's book. Here, Holland who already sounds quite a bit like Dennett speaks with personality and style that capture Dennett's wit and adds the punch it deserves.
Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry? This book attempts to explain religion, not scold it. No play for emotions here, as in the tomes of his fellow "horsemen" Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens , the mood is that of a philosopher, calm, serene and much more respectful.
Any additional comments? The book was okay, but I didn't care for the narration. The narrator has a great voice, but there was something about his narration that just didn't fit with this book. Sometimes it was the inflection that was off. Perhaps it was just that I could "hear" Daniel Dennett's voice and would have preferred him to this narrator.
This narrator is probably great on other books. Is there anything you would change about this book? A lot of the content was interesting, which kept me reading despite the fact that the author seems overly defensive and even a bit contemptuous at times.
As an atheist, I was hoping for a very neutral look at religion in a scientific context, but Dennet's anti-religious bias is just as pronounced, and just as annoying, as "objective" views written by the devoutly religious.
What was the most interesting aspect of this story? The least interesting? Some interesting concepts were explored - such as the difference between the belief in god vs. The least interesting parts are definitely his passages defending himself, defending his book, and defending his field.
He seems to assume the reader is either a religious fanatic reading his book with flaring indignation or a fellow religion-basher gleefully poking fun at all religious ideas. I was hoping for a more academic approach, perhaps looking at the role of religion in various societies both historically and currently. This book is more about how and why people believe the things they do, and the author's judgments on it. Breathtaking clarity on a subject almost never openly discussed.
This book calmly explains how religion could be perceived as a natural phenomenon evolving in our minds through thousands and thousands of years of our history. If you like Richard Dawkins, you will love this.
Comparing to authors like Sam Harris, Dennett is much more sophisticated and his explanations are deeper, which does not surprise, as he is a highly trained philosopher. Reading performance suits the book and its profound and calm nature very well. Highly recommended. I am learning not to buy science books unless they are narrated by a scientist.
Audible needs to do better. I am returning every other book. Yes, I listen to samples, and while I tell myself they are okay not great I end up regretting it.
This one seems almost like a computer generated voice. He over-enunciates and has a weird rhythm at times. He seems utterly disinterested. The domestication of religions 7. The Invention of Team Spirit 1. A path paved with good intentions 2. The ant colony and the corporation 3. The growth market in religion 4. A God you can talk to 8.
Belief in Belief 1. You better believe it 2. God as intentional object 3. The division of doxastic labor 4. The lowest common denominator? Beliefs designed to be professed 6. Lessons from Lebanon: the strange cases of the Druze and Kim Philby 7. Does God exist? For the love of God 2. The academic smoke screen 3. Why does it matter what you believe? What can your religion do for you? Morality and Religion 1. Does religion make us moral? Is religion what gives meaning to your life? What can we say about sacred values?
Bless my soul: spirituality and selfishness Now What Do We Do? Just a theory 2. Some avenues to explore: how can we home in on religious conviction? What shall we tell the children? Toxic memes 5. Patience and politics Appendixes A. The New Replicators? Start earning points for buying books! Uplift Native American Stories.
Add to Bookshelf. Dennett By Daniel C. Dennett Best Seller. Feb 06, ISBN Add to Cart. Buy from Other Retailers:. Feb 02, ISBN Paperback —. Also by Daniel C. See all books by Daniel C. About Daniel C. Dennett Daniel C.
Product Details. Inspired by Your Browsing History. The Great Partnership. Jonathan Sacks.
0コメント