Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

... Show More
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 Daniel C. 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 "Breaking the Spell," Dennett argues that the time has come to shed the light of science on the fundamental questions of faith. In a spirited 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. Deftly and lucidly, 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.

"Breaking the Spell" is not an antireligious screed but rather an eyeopening exploration of the role that belief plays in our lives, our interactions, and our country. With the gulf between rationalists and adherents of "intelligent design" widening daily, Dennett has written a timely and provocative book that will be read and passionately debated by believers and nonbelievers alike.

464 pages, Hardcover

First published February 2,2006

About the author

... Show More
Daniel Clement Dennett III is a prominent philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, science, and biology, particularly as they relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is a noted atheist, avid sailor, and advocate of the Brights movement.

Dennett received his B.A. in philosophy from Harvard University in 1963, where he was a student of W.V.O. Quine. In 1965, he received his D.Phil. from Christ Church, Oxford, where he studied under the ordinary language philosopher Gilbert Ryle.

Dennett gave the John Locke lectures at the University of Oxford in 1983, the Gavin David Young Lectures at Adelaide, Australia, in 1985, and the Tanner Lecture at Michigan in 1986, among many others. In 2001 he was awarded the Jean Nicod Prize, giving the Jean Nicod Lectures in Paris. He has received two Guggenheim Fellowships, a Fulbright Fellowship, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1987. He was the co-founder (1985) and co-director of the Curricular Software Studio at Tufts University, and has helped to design museum exhibits on computers for the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum of Science in Boston, and the Computer Museum in Boston. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Community Reviews

Rating(4 / 5.0, 100 votes)
5 stars
30(30%)
4 stars
35(35%)
3 stars
35(35%)
2 stars
0(0%)
1 stars
0(0%)
100 reviews All reviews
April 16,2025
... Show More
Dennett's underlying concern in this book is the growth of fanaticism among the adherents of religions - especially Islamist terrorism, but also extremists within Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. He believes that a major obstacle in addressing fanaticism is the general reluctance to submit religion and religious belief to scientific inquiry - to understand it, in other words, as a naturally occurring phenomenon. Religions, which regard themselves as grounded in the supernatural, are well defended against this method of inquiry, and Dennett devotes much of his book to an analysis of these defenses.

For readers who are neither philosophers nor biologists, this book will be a challenge. While Dennett uses a conversational, sometimes slyly humorous lecture style to introduce and discuss the many aspects of his subject, it's often difficult to understand how all the pieces fit together. Ironically, you may end up following him "in faith" that it all adds up somehow to a seamless argument.

While the book's title suggests that it will show the way to break religion's spell, it delivers something rather different from that. Maybe most discouraging (depending on the reader's expectations) is Dennett's admission that there are few answers currently to the questions he is raising and insufficient evidence to support the hypotheses he is posing. Instead, a lay reader will learn engaging new concepts like free-floating rationales, intentional objects, and hyperactive agent detection devices - and learn them in memorable ways (with the help at one point of Elizabeth II and Cameron Diaz), as well as how meme theory relates to the spread and tenacity of religious doctrines, plus an exploration of the difference between belief and belief in belief.

Finally, the book is a call to action to researchers to bring the illuminating light of scientific investigation to bear on religion and to test its claims instead of continuing to regard it as a sacred cow. Among potentially useful results, we may be able to deflect the worst excesses of fanaticism before its toxic effects destroy those secular values many also believe in - democracy, justice, freedom, and free inquiry itself.
April 16,2025
... Show More
I am a huge fan of Dennett's other work, but not really this one. He spends most of the book talking about why it's worthwhile for scientists to debunk religion and for religious folks to put their faith through a scientific test (which is fine), but he spends much less time actually debunking religion through science. I don't mean debunking a "God created the world" theory, which other books have done, but the idea that religion is good for people and good for society. He seems to take for granted that it is not and yet most cultures have created religion over time and again and again. It must have served some function that is not deleterious. He seemed unwilling to probe that. I would suggest Robert Wright's work as a better explication of evolution and religion (it's not a defense of religion at all--but more of an evolutionary view of religion).
April 16,2025
... Show More
Yet another long winded atheist attempts to grapple with the topic of religion, and basically becomes a tiresome bore that misses the entire point... And also manages to basically not say anything of actual depth, much less scientifically conclude anything.

He's a philosopher. I hate philosophy. I hate philosophers even more, because they engage in philosophy. He spends the first entire third of the book justifying, philosophically, the existence of the book!

He then spends the rest of the book basically saying "I don't understand religion. That's why I'm am atheist. Follow with me as I fail at understanding religion in the rest of my book." And occasionally tackles "deep" questions like "is science a religion?" (Massive spoiler: It's not. I know, I just ruined the movie for you.)

Better uses of your time include flossing your toes; being concerned about your constipated pet fish; playing cheeseorfont.com; and adopting cute bunnies at the SPCA.
April 16,2025
... Show More
As Alfred North Whitehead once put it, “Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.”


After having been disappointed with Dawkins' attempt at an argument against the existence of God, I came to Dennett hoping, and believing that surely here were the serious, intellectual arguments for atheism. I was thoroughly underwhelmed. As I was reading the book it struck me as a fine example of how philosophy should not be done. For clear thinking I suggest looking elsewhere. Dennett's own writing (which cannot but reflect muddled thinking as well) is certainly confident but unfortunately it is often rambling, indeterminate, and confused. An overuse of emotional language and a patronizing tone are two of the books major sins, but neither of these are so significant of that fact that he avails himself of terms and concepts which manifestly (and he would tell you this) do not and cannot fit in to the framework of his own materialist metaphysics. The argument is so overcrowded with unnecessary jargon that it makes it hard to pin down his logical slips and fallacies, but read closely and critically and you will find them.

If you are not already a materialist I find it unlikely that you will find this work convincing, since much of his argument presumes materialistic commitments. In addition the whole of the book seems fairly irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is whether religious beliefs actually correspond to a reality, and it comes of as so much arm chair hypothesizing within the already dubious framework of memetics and sociobiology.
April 16,2025
... Show More
When this book came out I resisted the temptation to read it. Because I thought I knew exactly what it would be like.

Finally in a book store in Oslo, when it looked at me, begging to be bought, I gave in. I bought it, read it. And now I would be happy if I could say it was totally different from what I expected. It was not.

Now, that in itself must not be a bad thing, after all, I love Dennett, and I read his books with pleasure and learned a lot. Why not a book about Religion as a natural phenomenon?

The book is, of course, unlike the books of the other "horsemen", very fair to the believers. And philosophical. Vintage Dennett. In fact, in large parts it reads like a parody of Dennett. All that you come to expect is in, evolution and memes, the tiny robots, Orgel’s second law, lots of new metaphors and intuition pump stories (how about one claimed that music is bad for you?)

He talks about Darwin a lot. And quotes Darwin again and again. How about Jesus? He gets at least mentioned a couple of times. Mohammed? Exactly once. Aquinas, St. Augustine? Not at all. It is not a book about theology. But also lots of William James. Okay, but who will be interested in this? Except, maybe, a philosopher.

Dennett said it in the very first sentence of the Preface. It is a book for American readers. To us Europeans the whole question of Religion natural or otherwise is just not interesting. It is a natural, but also historic phenomenon that for reasons not quite clear is still of huge importance for Americans.

I am an atheist and also a Catholic (who pays taxes for the privilege to call himself a Catholic). But to me Religion is exactly what the Boston Reds are for Dennett. I feel I belong to the club and I am embarrassed whenever the Pope says something more stupid than usual. But it is not of any real importance.

I am not a hundred percent sure, that Dennett is quite honest. Maybe his claim that he thinks that religion as a phenomenon has to be studied is just a trick. Down deep inside he is sure that there is no intrinsic worth in it. But even if he were sincere, I think asking people to study religions and then make a rational decision is naive and well... stupid. Religion is irrational. And Believers are irrational credo quia absurdum and all that. I think it makes much more sense to be polemical, to call believers if not stupid then misguided, like Dawkins or Hitchens. Fight for what you think is right or against what you think is wrong. But even better, say nothing, lead a moral and fulfilled life as an atheist. Show them it is possible.

April 16,2025
... Show More
Of all the books out there that take on the subject of religion head on, this one definitely has the softest touch. Daniel Dennett doesn't set out to mock people for believing the unbelievable; rather, he makes a very interesting case for religion being a "natural phenomenon," as the subtitle suggests. And Breaking the Spell is much more than a polemic. I can't begin to say how much I learned from this book, about the coevolution of human society and the world surrounding it. Dennett expands on the idea of memes and the evolution of ideas, including religion.

There are so many interesting subjects here: divination as a means of reducing responsibility for decision-making; dealing with the death of loved ones; the reproductive advantage of memes that involve fantastic elements, like a floating axe or a talking donkey. The list goes on. Most interestingly, he points out that not all things that coevolve are mutually beneficial, and the various good and bad points to the world's evolved religions are explored as well. My favorite book on the subject of religion in general.
April 16,2025
... Show More
There's some stiff competition, but this might actually be the most incoherent / badly-argued / terrible book ever published by an actual philosophy professor. There are many brilliant atheistic critiques of religion; this is definitely not one of them.
April 16,2025
... Show More
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.
Leave a Review
You must be logged in to rate and post a review. Register an account to get started.