Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Paperback – February 6, 2007

The above Editorial Review from "Scientific American" concludes that this book "... seem[s] aimed more at fellow skeptics than at the true believers Dennett hopes to unconvert." But it seems to me, Dennett has written a religious primer for social scientists to study before launching their own research to answer the long list of questions he poses in his last chapter (p.314-5). Indeed, early on he concedes "We philosophers are better at asking questions than at answering them ..." (p.19) Still he pleads "It is high time that we subject religion as a global phenomenon to the most intensive multidisciplinary research we can muster ..." (p.14) And eventho' he says "I intend to reach as wide an audience of believers as possible ... to play the role of ambassador ..." (p.23-4), I must agree with SA that it's hard to imagine many `true believers' as the audience for this book.But I can also relate to Dennett's frustration in trying to reach that audience eventho', based on many casual conversations, there seem to be a great many closet skeptics in our populace. And not just among the well educated but among ordinary folks. In my experience, folks won't loosen their grip on their `true beliefs' until they face up to some crucial contradictions they encounter between their beliefs and the realities of today's world - until they experience `cognitive dissonance' in their lives which prompts them to think outside the box of religious beliefs. Even then, `rewiring one's brain' is an arduous journey. As an aid in such journeys, my book "Concepts: A ProtoTheist Quest for Science-Minded Skeptics" traces my research and conclusions in making my own journey. I mailed Dennett a gratis copy nearly two years ago, but he makes no reference to it in his book, eventho' he cites subsequent books. He says (p.32) "... scientists don't want to deal with second-rate colleagues ..." nor apparently with non-academics. Yet he admits "... perhaps I have overlooked some contributions that will eventually be recognized retrospectively to be most important." (p.312) Hopefully this was just an oversight that will be corrected.In what may seem like a minor quibble but which has major importance for my book, Dennett equates Bergson's "... elan vital (the secret ingredient that distinguishes living things from mere matter)" of a century ago with today's DNA (p.208). But science is now recovering DNA from crime scenes and long dead fossils, none of which is alive. So there must be something more that infuses life; I call it the `Life Urge'.While I can find a few other details to quibble about, still I must applaud Dennett for making another major contribution to the exploration of the phenomena that are collectively called `religion'. Leavened with humor, he logically, meticulously and unflinchingly goes about breaking "... the taboo against a forthright, scientific, no-holds-barred investigation of religion as one natural phenomenon among many ... as opposed to supernatural ..." (p.17&25) If you're looking for a compendium to refute religious arguments, Dennett provides an excellent one. Nonetheless, in his final chapter he states, "Having insisted at the outset that we need to do much more research so that we can make well-informed decisions, I would be contradicting myself if I now proceeded to prescribe courses of action on the basis of my initial foray." But I'm not so reticent or patient - in this 21st century with its runaway materialism and religious factions, we urgently need better guidance than provided by obsolete religions.

Some reviewers complain that answers aren't given in this book. You should know that the point of the book is to discuss why religion should be studied and what questions we might want to ask in hopes of finding some answers.I want to let potential readers know that if you're just an average reader, have your dictionary handy. The book is not an easy read.If you've been looking at the religions of the world from the outside, you probably will recognise many of your own observations about religions and religious people in Dennett's writing.My hope is that the majority of (moderate) religion adherants who read this book will feel empowered to question their own faith and to take on those attitudes and/or individuals in their religion that are giving it a bad name. This book provides many qustions worth considering.As an atheist myself, it was cathartic to read in print many things that I have observed all along. I especially liked reading his refuting the common misconception about how "not having a god means you have no motive to lead a good life". Atheists are not immoral or behind many of the problems in this world. When you believe that we are here by random events you can't help but revere and value all life and the processes that support it. All life is amazing and very, very special. This inclines us to want to do good in the world and make what time we have count for something, especially if we can make a difference for the future for our common descendants...since that's the only future we have! (make "heaven" here on earth as the cliche' goes). Knowing that we are animals that have evolved from a more primitive form enlightens us about (as one reviewer put it) the "natural man" that we still are. It is our higher thinking that has raised us above being a primitive animal. It makes no sense to think that avoiding reason somehow makes us better humans...it's what made us humans in the first place! And, one doesn't need religion or god to know intimately what religious people would call spiritual experiences. They are indeed a normal part of the human experience. We just don't all explain it the same way. I would SO love to see religious people understand this and I hope that Dennett's attempt to suggest forthrightly that we absolutely SHOULD try to discover the complicated workings of human "sprituality" and religion is seen as a positive and productive cause.As he said in the book, the religious experts will be a very necessary part of such an endeavor...so climb on board and embrace and be a contributor to the process! You're needed!And by the way, Dennet suggests that the opposite of "bright" would be "super" (as in believer in supernatural) - unlike the tone that some reviewers imply.

I have written this review mainly in response to xyz's negative review in which he or she claims that Dennett does not define religion. On the contrary! While xyz may have purchased the book, they OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ IT. Most of the first chapter involves defining and describing religion as discussed in the book, but especially the SIX PAGES 7-12. I wonder what percentage of the other negative reviews suffer from the same failure to read problem, thus serving mainly as emotional screeds designed to discourage people from reading and thinking about this extremely thought provoking, reality-orienting book. I feel fascinated by the huge percentage of religious True Believers who feel so threatened by and angry with others who fail to agree with their God delusions. Hmm. Might this happen because God, through the books they consider their ultimate moral standard and infallible authority (for Christians the Bible), tells them many, many times to hate and kill all non-believers, up to and including women, children, and genocide? (Happily, while many people do, most people do not consider this a decent, much less a desirable(!) moral standard. Yet God supposedly insists on it.) I fail to grasp why, if God has such astounding powers in the universe as True Believers insist, He/She/It would feel in any way threatened by a few mere non-believing, sinful humans, much less insist on murdering them, including entire societies. To better understand these things, and much, much more about religion, one needs to actually read Dennett's book as well as related books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.