Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Penguin Books (2007), Edition: Reprint, 464 pages
Description
An innovative thinker tackles the controversial question of why we believe in God and how religion shapes our lives and our future. For a growing number of people, there is nothing more important than religion. It is an integral part of their marriage, child rearing, and community. In this daring new book, distinguished philosopher Dennett takes a hard look at this phenomenon and asks why. Where does our devotion to God come from and what purpose does it serve? Is religion a blind evolutionary compulsion or a rational choice? In a narrative that ranges widely through history, philosophy, and psychology, Dennett explores how organized religion evolved from folk beliefs and why it is such a potent force today. He contends that the "belief in belief" has fogged any attempt to rationally consider the existence of God and the relationship between divinity and human need.--From publisher description.… (more)
Media reviews
He quotes himself (approvingly) as follows (p. 302): ‘‘Yes we have a soul; but it’s made of lots of tiny robots.’’ Thus, for Dennett, our beliefs reside not in our verbal and nonverbal behavioral patterns but in a set of mechanisms (the tiny robots) in our brains.... But, granted that no
Show More
complete understanding of human behavior can be achieved without understanding internal mechanisms, if you knew everything there is to know about those tiny robots (and the tinier robots inside them, and those inside them) you would still not understand why people do the things they do and why they say the things they say. You will have ignored the most important scientific fact—the most important Darwinian fact— about those patterns (including religious patterns): their function in the person’s environment (including the social environment). Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member Drifter83
I had been looking forward to reading this for some time. Overall, I was disappointed. I do not believe that it adds much to the discussion, and Dennett does not write in as compelling a manner as some of the other authors in the field. In his defense, he begins the book by warning that (1) he sets
Show More
out to raise questions, not answers, and (2) this book is geared for readers outside of academia. That said, saying "This book will suck" at the very beginning will not make a book suck any less - it just shifts the onus for continuing to read it onto the reader. (Also, I think he fails in his attempts to make the book "accessible." He ends up somewhere between audiences - he has not geared the book down enough to make it flow well, but has geared it down just enough to whet your appetite for a more serious discussion of the technical issues - which never comes).Dennett has a style that frustrated me immensely - every chapter began in a way that would build my excitement for the discussion to come. Then, suddenly, I would start reading about how exciting our discussion had just been - but I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out when the actual substantive discussion had happened (because it hadn't).It would be unfair to say that there were no interesting ideas raised in the book - there were. But I do not feel that I know anything more about the topic than when I began. Also, Dennett has a tendency to go on tangents (addressing the reader directly) regarding why religion does not make sense and atheism is the more reasonable position. I have no problem with this discussion in general, but I think it (1) distracts from the topic (supposedly) at hand, and (2) alienates the reader. At least with Dawkins and Harris they are upfront with their positions and don't pull any punches. Dennett purports to be more neutral, but undercuts that position throughout the text. Show Less
LibraryThing member dick_pountain
The current resurgence of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism is a source of great worry and puzzlement to secularists (present reviewer included) who thought such beliefs would the wane in the face of a triumphant science. What's perhaps more surprising is how ineffective the kind of
The pre-Socratic Greeks, Shakespeare, Nietzche, Freud all tell us, as if we didn't know already, that we're not primarily rational animals - if we were then belief in God could only be an error or even an illness that could be cured by scientific education, which is what Dennett appears to believe. It's no surprise that many people find this attitude patronising or even threatening. American evangelicals may reject Darwinism but they still drive cars and use the internet. Dennett distinguishes 'belief' from 'belief in belief': the former actually imagines a grey-haired father figure in the sky, while the latter merely thinks that believing in such a figure is a good idea because it makes people behave well. However he shrinks from following this to its conclusion, that religion is often politics in disguise. Running through the history of both Christianity and Islam is a millenarian streak of class revenge, the idea that while the rich might enjoy the privileges of this world, they will burn in hell in the next. US evangelicals rebel against the 1960s liberalism of the East and West Coast Media Elites, whose freedom loving lifestyle happens to coincide with a monopoly on the best-paid jobs; Islamic fundamentalists despair of justice for Palestine and invoke the Wrath of God because the Wraths of Nasserism and Baathism proved corrupt and impotent.
Dennett's brand of rationalism can barely scratch the surface of such passions, and the book disappoints on several levels: its Darwinian theme is too shallow to satisfy, and it's often soft on religion where it should be hardest but patronising where it ought to be understanding.
Show More
Darwinist/Rationalist counter-argument expounded by Richard Dawkins, Francis Wheen or Daniel Dennett is proving against this new strain of belief.The pre-Socratic Greeks, Shakespeare, Nietzche, Freud all tell us, as if we didn't know already, that we're not primarily rational animals - if we were then belief in God could only be an error or even an illness that could be cured by scientific education, which is what Dennett appears to believe. It's no surprise that many people find this attitude patronising or even threatening. American evangelicals may reject Darwinism but they still drive cars and use the internet. Dennett distinguishes 'belief' from 'belief in belief': the former actually imagines a grey-haired father figure in the sky, while the latter merely thinks that believing in such a figure is a good idea because it makes people behave well. However he shrinks from following this to its conclusion, that religion is often politics in disguise. Running through the history of both Christianity and Islam is a millenarian streak of class revenge, the idea that while the rich might enjoy the privileges of this world, they will burn in hell in the next. US evangelicals rebel against the 1960s liberalism of the East and West Coast Media Elites, whose freedom loving lifestyle happens to coincide with a monopoly on the best-paid jobs; Islamic fundamentalists despair of justice for Palestine and invoke the Wrath of God because the Wraths of Nasserism and Baathism proved corrupt and impotent.
Dennett's brand of rationalism can barely scratch the surface of such passions, and the book disappoints on several levels: its Darwinian theme is too shallow to satisfy, and it's often soft on religion where it should be hardest but patronising where it ought to be understanding.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sylverpyro
More or less, this book is a 300 page question (most of it lead up) as to weather or not the occurrence of religion can be explained by Evolutionary Psychology. That is can the existence and evolution of religion be explained by the inborn traits of the human race (such as the need for community,
In the end however the book is simply a question, and there are no definite conclusions posed. The purpose of the book rather is to force enough information on the reader that they have enough ideas in their head to look at religion with an eye of discern rather than unquestioning loyalty (which is the authors greatest issues with Religion: the fact that it places its self behind a veil of unquestionably with "we are not meant to understand this, so just believe it and everything will be fine").
Show More
need for leadership, susceptibility to the placebo effect, ect.). The book contains far too much information and borders on a dissertation when it comes to the amount of academic arguments the author brings into play, which isn't necessary a bad thing. But it does have the tendency to lose you at some points however with its logic.In the end however the book is simply a question, and there are no definite conclusions posed. The purpose of the book rather is to force enough information on the reader that they have enough ideas in their head to look at religion with an eye of discern rather than unquestioning loyalty (which is the authors greatest issues with Religion: the fact that it places its self behind a veil of unquestionably with "we are not meant to understand this, so just believe it and everything will be fine").
Show Less
LibraryThing member Michael_Rose
Daniel C. Dennett tries to remains as respectful and polite as he can, all while trying to take the idea of religion in purely logical terms. This attempt earned him nothing from his critics, but it's still a good read despite their lack of comfort with its writings.
LibraryThing member TheCrow2
In his book Dennett tries to describe a probable evolutionary progression of organized religions and argues that religions cannot scrutiny as anything else because of their 'holy' status. A bit hard to read but a food for thought nonetheless...
LibraryThing member BenjaminHahn
I found this book to be a refreshing take on the atheist argument in that Dennett focuses on the evolutionary function of religion within the human species. Dennett is not as "in your face" aggressive about the argument for atheism as say, Harris, Hitchens, or Dawkins. He is a bit kinder and just
Show More
has a more methodical approach to his writing. As with the other "four horsemen" writers, I wonder what the intended audience is for these books. I am often left with the feeling that these books are written for the atheist as booster shots. They aren't, what I would call, atheist evangelism, or at least they aren't effective as such. If I had to pick one however, Dennett seems to be less focused on preaching to the choir and more interested in assuming the reader is a believer who is trying to give the atheist argument a fair shot. I tend to believe that if any meaningful dialog is going to come out of the believer/nonbeliever conflict, this type of approach is the only one that has any chance at working. I love reading Harris, Hitchens, or Dawkins because their tenacity is humorous, but they are polemical. I would never give one of their books to a Christian friend who was interested in understanding my point of view. I would consider giving them Dennett though. He explains that one is not stupid for having religious conviction, but there are measurable scientific ways of exploring why humans have those religious convictions and where they possibly came from in the first place. The idea that religious faith as a psychological element has certain evolutionary benefits makes some believers very uncomfortable. That's where Dennett's rubber meets the road. Once belief, even "belief in belief" as Dennett puts it, becomes testable than the magical thinking starts to wane. Believers begin to panic and we end up with a reason vs. unreason. Not a fun place to leave a friend when discussing this sensitive topic. I think this book helps on both sides a breaking down each chapter with summaries and self criticism. Show Less
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
Dennett is much more readable than many of today's philosophers. He doesn't obscure his ideas behind a wall of abstruse language designed more to befuddle than illuminate. Maybe that's why he has become so controversial when other writers on the same topic have not: people can actually understand
Show More
what he's saying. Dennett calls for a new paradigm that allows for the open, honest criticism of religion just as other fields of study are openly evaluated. I recommend this book for anyone; and I promise, you won't be struck by lightning if you read it (or at least, I wasn't. I don't actually control lightning, so maybe I should say it's improbable.) Show Less
LibraryThing member NotAZombie
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
Show More
willing and able to speak to the issues surrounding unreasonable beliefs. Show Less
LibraryThing member Qshio
I can't recommend this highly enough. This is not an anti-religion screed at all, but comes at the topic of religion as a naturally emerging aspect of humanity in a thoughtful, funny, accessible way. It is "New Atheist" only in that it calls for open questioning and research of religion and its
Show More
utility (and it's written by an atheist). Show Less
LibraryThing member tgoodson
The entire thing could be stated clearly in ten pages.
LibraryThing member fpagan
For one who knows that religion is dangerous nonsense, Dennett here bends over backwards to be nice to its practitioners while comprehensively describing what is scientifically known about its evolution and nature. A number of reviewers have said that his words will nevertheless fail to penetrate
Show More
the skulls of those who most need to hear them. Show Less
LibraryThing member cdogzilla
Dennett reminds us (and by "us" I mean everyone with a side in the debate between theists and atheists) of the importance of questioning not just the other side, but our side as well, with regard to what we know, what we think we know, how we know it, and how we can know more tomorrow than we do
Recommended.
Show More
today. If he's not as strident as Dawkins and Harris, he strikes me as a little more grounded than Onfray, whose philosophical take on theism was a little more lit-crit than I'd have liked. Recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member triminieshelton
WRitten for the lay (nonscientist, nonphilosopher), book discusses the Darwinian evolution of religion. Interesting ideas about memes, faith, etc. A bit manic.
LibraryThing member ShiraC
Not Dennett's best book, but probably his most popular. Its tone is not as provocative (some would say strident) as some of the other recent atheist tomes. And that is (in my opinion) a good thing. However, this doesn't really offer much new information or interesting analysis, unlike many of
Show More
Dennett's other books. Show Less
LibraryThing member Mandarinate
On the one hand, an interesting speculation on religious creeds as competing "memes" (ideas that struggle for survival through reproduction and mutation), on the other, a tedious rhetoric aimed at dissuading people with strong religious convictions. The book would have been so much more interesting
Show More
as an empirical and theoretical investigation of the survival and evolution of religious ideas. Show Less
LibraryThing member GeekGoddess
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
Show More
the foundations and historicity of morality and the continuing reasons for continued bleief in Bronze Age mythologies. Show Less
LibraryThing member getdowmab
Interesting discussion of the need for scientific examination into the value of religion.
LibraryThing member llasram
Didn’t appeal to me nearly as much as Dennett’s earlier books. I felt it suffered from an unclear conception of audience, trying to appeal to both those who assume religion must necessarily be a natural phenomenon and to those why are still “on the line.” I’ll probably give it another
Show More
look at some point. Show Less
LibraryThing member Atomicmutant
I can't really cover it better than "oakesspalding" does below, I agree with him.
I am as wary of scientism as a dogma as I am of any other dogma. Dennett’s just too plain angry and convinced that he’s right. I can’t get behind Dawkins’ concept of ‘memes’, either, as being anything but a
I really wanted to like that book, (I enjoyed an interview with Dennett about the book that I heard), but ultimately, I think it’s ultimate failure is in absolutely not respecting it’s audience.
It’s Dennett’s magnificent intellect against the world, and I think we’re to be forgiven for passing him by like any other zealot on a soapbox. He’s written better, and I hope he’ll write better
again.
I am as wary of scientism as a dogma as I am of any other dogma. Dennett’s just too plain angry and convinced that he’s right. I can’t get behind Dawkins’ concept of ‘memes’, either, as being anything but a
Show More
fancy description of “idea”, and so his repeated invocation of that concept became a bit exhausting. I am also not in favor of the “flavor of the month” designation of “brights” for rationalists/humanists. It’s entirely condescending to my way of thinking, and was distracting.I really wanted to like that book, (I enjoyed an interview with Dennett about the book that I heard), but ultimately, I think it’s ultimate failure is in absolutely not respecting it’s audience.
It’s Dennett’s magnificent intellect against the world, and I think we’re to be forgiven for passing him by like any other zealot on a soapbox. He’s written better, and I hope he’ll write better
again.
Show Less
LibraryThing member GlennBell
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
Show More
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. Show Less
LibraryThing member Razinha
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
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.
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member uufnn
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
"Religion has elicited the best and worst in the human character, from selflessness to fanaticism. But until now few books have tried to
Show More
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: 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 beneath the veil of orthodoxy. the result is essential reading for believers and skeptics alike." Source: the book's back cover. Show Less
Awards
National Book Critics Circle Award (Finalist — 2006)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2006
Physical description
464 p.; 5.4 inches
ISBN
0143038338 / 9780143038337
UPC
880792171139
Local notes
TK