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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Već od samog provokativnog naslova nam je jasan cilj knjige, ali ton samog izlaganja je zapanjujuće prijateljski, sa vrlo malo provokacija. Izgleda da je autor zaista iskren kada kaže da je knjiga napisana da bi je čitali i religiozni ljudi. Naravno, on misli na obrazovane i intelektualno poštene ljude, ne na fundamentaliste koji ne prihvataju, na primer, evoluciju života. Knjiga zvuči kao da je napisana prvenstveno njima. Još jedna od glavnih ciljnih grupa su mu budući istraživači.
Da bi uopšte razmatrali natprirodna rešenja moramo najpre da ispitamo i odbacimo prirodne mogućnosti. Denet nam predlaže da, bar za početak, posmatramo religiju kao i sve drugo, kao prirodnu pojavu koja je produkt evolucije koja ne dopušta ništa što, makar u početku, ne donosi nikakvu korist organizmu u biološkom smislu ili makar nastaje kao sporedni produkt neke neposredno korisne osobine. Ima više hipoteza o razlozima za nastanak religije. Denetova hipoteza začetke religije vidi u sećanjima na preminule pretke kojima se pridaju božanska svojstva, kao i čovekovoj sklonosti da pridaje svojstva ličnosti svemu što zavređuje njegovu pažnju. Pošto su nastale, religije su se dalje razvijale uz kulturnu evoluciju kroz razvoj rituala, mitologiju i tržište religijskih ideja. Religija je evoluirala i menjala se u skladu sa ljudskim vrednostima.
Denet eksplicitno kaže da su ideje koje navodi u knjizi daleko od dokazane teorije, ali su proverljive, za razliku od mnogih drugih. To je dobar početak. S druge strane, neproverljive hipoteze nisu ni tačne ni netačne, one su samo - besmislene.
Svakog dana se stvaraju po dve-tri nove religije? Zašto je to tako? Najstarije današnje religije su stare nekoliko hiljada godina. Očigledno je da su sve one dizajnirane i evoluirale iz nekih razloga koji su još uvek nepoznati. Nepoznati su samo zato što se te stvari ne ispituju. Čarolija koja, po Denetu, mora da se razbije, jeste tabu koji zabranjuje kritičko ispitivanje religije. Prvenstvena namera ove knjige nije da da odgovor na pitanje da li bogovi postoje, već samo da razmotri šta je to religija, kako je nastala i čemu služi. Pošto postoje i pozitivne i negativne strane religije, on želi da se ispita koje pretežu. Da li možda postoji nešto drugo, sem religije, što je korisnije ljudima u ovom smislu? Da li će zaista sve propasti ako se religija diskredituje? Gotovo svi vernici misle da postavljanje pitanja o veri ismeva i unižavava njihovu veru. Ali ako postoji granica znanja koju ne smemo da prelazimo, mi moramo biti sigurni da ona postoji, gde je i koji su razlozi za nju. Denet ubedljivo obrazlaže da je zaista vredno istraživati. „Nijedan bog kojeg usrećuje pokazivanje nerazumne ljubavi ne bi bio vredan obožavanja.“
Da bi ljudi koji su na suprotstavljenim stranama mogli da raspravljaju o nečemu, moraju dozvoliti mogućnost da njihovi stavovi koje žele da nametnu nisu a priori ispravni. Takođe, i još važnije, moraju postaviti neki zajednički ideal kako bi imalo smisla raspravljati. Danas više nego ikad, postoje razlozi da shvatimo religiju jer opasnost da fanatici unište svet postaje sve veća. Makar njima je neophodno razbiti čaroliju. A umereni vernici tu takođe nose svoj deo odgovornosti.

On the whole, a good book, and he makes some great points, but I don't think at all that the book accomplishes much that he set out to accomplish with it. This kind of philosophical argument doesn't go over well with most religious types, so it's hard to think of giving this book to, say, my mother, to convince her that maybe I'm not horrible for raising my kids without religion.

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 utility (and it's written by an atheist).

Probably my favorite book club book so far. I'd give it a 4.5 but since that isn't an option I rounded up.
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.