Breaking the Spell is a very interesting read as it looks at different parts of religion from different perspectives. Dennett appears to be more open to dialog and less aggressive than Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris and while this is somewhat refreshing for me as a reader, it is also a little bit duller although I wonder if the narrator (it was an audiobook) isn't partially responsible for it.

Overall it added some food for though which is always good but I'm still looking for the book that is able to find a good common ground for genuine progressive discussion between atheists and believers. Although it covers a lot of ground and the author tries to establish starting points for such a discussion, it isn't enough. At least not for me.

Bastante bueno, no tan agresivo como Dawkins u Onfray.
Me gustó su premisa (Hay que quitarle el velo a las religiones y atrevernos a estudiarlas desde un punto de vista objetivo).

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.

Dennett seems like he'd be one of the nicest people you would ever meet. He is not polarizing like, say Dawkins, but that also gives him the ability to reach a broader audience. That, unfortunately, may be where he lost some steam with me in this book. I felt like his detailing his argument parameters left me often saying, "I know, let's get to it." Therein lies the problem I had with this book, I wasn't the target audience. The book really seemed to be geared to those who have not really examined their position on faith and belief or are just starting to. I did so long ago so this book only added nuggets of supporting information for my convictions.

As a philosopher, he is stunningly detailed in his mapping an argument and his approach is very even handed. This makes him accessible to those who are intellectual and also wanting to take an honest look at the arguments on faith, etc. Dennett doesn't demonize or mock peoples beliefs but rather just lays the arguments out for reasonable discussion. However, Dennett is so thorough he comes off as a bit meandering and boring if you already know where he's going. But, if you are new to the arguments or material then you will probably enjoy this hard work.

I didn't like the idea of grouping "freethinkers" as "brights" for two reasons: 1. It simply seems a little corny; 2. It implicitly suggests those who believe are "dims." Again, where ND Tyson and Dennett shine (as did Sagan so perfectly) is their non-offensive approach which allows people to process the information without tuning out due to perceived insult. This is the role of the educator.

In the end, I think I prefer listening to Dennett in a lecture setting more than his writing as the time constraints force him to be quicker to the point. But again, for those who enjoy philosophy or simply want a robust, yet unoffensive, argument on faith and belief this book will likely serve them well.

This gentleman writes like a college freshman. Rambles off on tangents constantly. Spends his first 100 pages re-stating the purpose of the book, while wondering if he should, in fact, write the book.

Daniel Dennett, a brilliant philosopher, devotes his book to analysing religion as a natural phenomenon. He looks at religion from multiple points and comments on how our beliefs shape our reality and influence all aspects of everyday life. Why we don't trust the 'others' or what the modern science can reveal about our spiritual life, the concept of 'memes' in a way our brain stores the information and much more. An amazing book!

ehh. It's ok, but by the second chapter you get the thesis, and it's just more proving after that.

3.5 stars.

Answering rhetorical questions

Daniel Dennett is my favorite philosopher. This is not much of a distinction, since generally speaking I have little use for philosophers. My principle objection was well expressed by Deep Thought in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

VROOMFONDEL: That’s right. You’ll have a national philosopher’s strike on your hands.
DEEP THOUGHT: Who will that inconvenience?

This exchange serves to illustrate one of Dennett's bits of advice: A good philosopher -- indeed, a serious thinker of any persuasion -- should try to answer rhetorical questions. Deep Thought's question "Who will that [a philosopher's strike] inconvenience?" is clearly meant to be rhetorical. We are meant to realize that no one would be inconvenienced by a philosopher's strike, and to infer that philosophers have no practical value.

For the most part I agree with this unstated (by Douglas Adams) inference. However, I would be inconvenienced if Dennett closed up shop. His insights into evolution and the evolution of purpose have been valuable to me as a working biologist.

Breaking the Spell is, I believe, an attempt to answer another such rhetorical question. And here I need to confess that I read the book eleven years ago and no longer remember it in detail. Dennett is a prominent atheist. Unlike some other prominent atheists, he tries to engage respectfully with the defenders of religion. And I'm guessing he has often been asked the question, "If there is no God, how is it that through history a majority of people have believed that gods exist?" When asked, that question is not really meant as a question, but as a knockdown argument against atheism.

In this book, Dennett takes the question seriously. He explores the idea that since religion is out there -- it is a natural phenomenon -- it can be scientifically investigated like other natural phenomena.

I've always considered Daniel Dennett an overrated 'thinker', so it was with some trepidation that I picked up this book.

Sure enough, I was a mere five pages in when the disappointment became acute. Dennett says:

"Hardly anybody would say that the most important thing in life is having more grandchildren than one's rivals do, but this is the default summer bonum of every wild animal. They don't know any better. They can't. They're just animals."

This is the kind of archaic idea that underpins all of Dennett's simplifications of the nature of life and existence. I've just finished reading Carl Safina's excellent work 'Beyond Words What Animals Think And Feel', a book written by a lauded Professor of Ecology which completely invalidates the aforementioned statement from Dennett. Existence, life, ecology, intelligence...these are all incredibly complex subjects, almost impossibly so, yet Dennett reduces the entire 'animal kingdom' into one generalised, uninformed category and begins his philosophical speculation from that nonsense datum point. He is erecting castles made of sand, and primitive, unsophisticated ones at that.

On page 111 Dennett says: "Faced with a threatening rival, many animals can make an informationally sensitive decision either to retreat or to call the other's bluff, but there is scant evidence they they have any sense of what they are doing or why."
Arrant nonsense. The discerning reader will stumble upon these short-sighted, dim-witted assertions throughout this book.

Bennett mentions Buddhism several times throughout the book, but the 'religion' practised by approximately 10% of the world's population is given scant attention, perhaps because it flies in the face of the low-hanging theistic targets that Dennett and his ilk like to question? Furthermore on page 198, Dennett quotes another author, Stark, saying: "...as well as the proportion of those churchgoers who are not cut out for high-tension, expensive religions of the sort Stark favours. They exist all over the world; according to Stark and Finke, "there are 'godless' religions, but their followings are restricted to small elites - as in the case of the elite forms of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism." Wow, I don't know where to start with that comment. How does one classify 600 million people as a "small elite" and how does one refer to Buddhism as an "expensive religion"?! Educate yourselves Mr Dennett and Mr Stark...perhaps when you mention "small elites" you're getting confused with Judaism, a religion practised by a mere 16 million people globally but mentioned at every turn throughout the book?

I suppose in the modern world philosophy doesn't pay well and receives little recognition, the best minds are diverted to other fields. Nowhere is this more evidenced than in the nonsense preached by Dennett, an outspoken man with middling intellect. He is a 'philosopher', although I use the term begrudgingly, guilty of scientific overreach; he doesn't know what he doesn't know, but his ego simplifies problems to the point of nonsense so that he can erect deluded edifices of low-brow philosophical expositions.

"These are questions worth further investigation." This could be the theme of this book.

So, I've read three of the four books written after Nine Eleven by the "Four Horsemen" of atheism. Of them, only Sam Harris's The End of Faith was published prior to this one. This book takes a different, more dispassionate, tack. It looks at the question of how religion came about and why it persists. Dennett directly addresses believers, asking them to question themselves, and with each question he invites them to step a tiny bit further out of their comfort zone.

In some ways I feel he's a little too accommodating to the other side, but it became clear early on that people like me are not the primary audience of this book. I'd like my xian friends, relatives, and acquaintances to read Sam Harris's book, but that's not likely. But those who are more liberal, who think there are worthy books besides the bible, might be persuaded out of their certainty in their particular faith by these reasoned, quiet questions.