An interesting book that dives into religion: how it started, is it crock, does it have merit, and do people actually believe in it or are they just following the narrative.

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" is a book by philosopher Daniel Dennett, in which he argues that religion should be studied as a natural phenomenon, and that it can be explained through scientific and evolutionary means. He also suggests that understanding religion in this way can help to reduce religious conflict and promote more rational and peaceful societies. The book received both praise and criticism upon its release, with some reviewers praising its arguments and others criticizing its approach to the study of religion.

Overall, I found the book was good, but I also think that the 2nd half of the book was better, which dived into more concrete ideas. However, I still prefer Richard Dawkins book “The God Delusion.”

Dennett’s approach is very different than most who write about religion, in that (I believe) he is quite genuine in his ‘I don’t know, and neither do you, so let’s discuss it’ stance. He poses very important questions and admits that he doesn’t have answers; questions like: does religion do more harm or more good? His main recommendation is that we remove the taboo from asking questions about belief, and remove the stigma from researchers attempting to ask the important questions. He goes further to say that we should openly discuss and educate all children in the historical facts, beliefs, and practices of all world religions so that every person can make an informed decision for their own life. Any person who truly seeks a better world should have no objection to this. As he says (paraphrased): ‘Any truly good faith should easily withstand scrutiny due to the strength of the inherent values. If your belief requires hoodwinking and deceit and restricted education to convince children to accept it, then it should die out.’

Interesting read, but not the most compelling polemic.

Boring, atheist trash by an author who says people are stupid if they don't agree with him.

How little credit we give our ancestors. And how little we consider our own dogmatisms about what constitutes "rationality" and "logic."

Is it fascinating to anyone else that we suddenly *found* ultimate truth in the past three hundred years? What about the fact that even our scientific understanding of the world was not developed in a vacuum, but has been produced in the language and cultural context of "irrational" societies? If we make our ancestors idiots, why do we accept their linguistic craftsmanship?

Be very careful to ensure that one is talking about the same object in a pluralist scheme. I suspect that Mr. Dennett is not. See Wittgenstein's notes on Frazer's Golden Bough.

In Breaking the Spell Dan Dennett, Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, examines religion as a natural phenomenon. In other words, he examines the evolutionary, sociological and psychological factors that served to make religion ubiquitous among Homo sapiens.

Dennett has been dubbed one of the “Four Horsemen” along with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris which is bizarre because he comes off as about the nicest, most cordial and courteous person around (he even looks like Santa Claus for goodness sake). The only people who could take offense to the book are those with chips on their shoulders who have already decided that a rational discussion of religion is a topic forbidden from examination.

So what is Dennett claiming?

1.tReligion is a natural phenomenon (as opposed to being ‘supernatural’, not surprising since there is no evidence supporting the existence of the latter).

2.tReligion’s roots are found in the predisposition of humans to perceive ‘agency’. Agency is the sense that there is a consciousness responsible for specific actions. This heuristic (mental shortcut) works well much of the time. When we see someone pick up a object we assume it’s because the person performing the action has a desire to pick it up. However, this approach goes awry when agency is associated with natural events … for example - my crops failed because the spirits were offended by something I did or failed to do. It’s a short jump from perceived agency to the animistic gods who control winds, water and weather and from there to the judgmental gods who are preternaturally concerned with the things you do with your clothes off.

3.tReligion spreads through stories, and only the best stories survive. Much like evolution through natural selection the weakest ideas are culled from the herd while the fittest persist. Thus mythologies are refined over time to become ever more interesting and resonant and therefore more likely to be propagated - a concept captured by what Richard Dawkins has dubbed a ‘meme’ (cultural information that is transmitted by repetition and replication in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes).

4.tSome of the means used by religions to make themselves more robust as memes include: ceremony, ritual, music, recitation, celebration, repetition and basically everything else you associate with a church service. More recently churches have turned to marketing of their product much like is done for other commercial products or services.

5.tAnother factor playing a role in religions tenacity is a prevalence of what Dennett calls ‘belief in belief’. Some people believe in god, but many more (including some atheists) feel belief, in and of itself is a good thing. Thus many ‘profess’ belief whether or not they are truly believers because they think it’s the right thing to do.

6.tFaced with scientific explanations of the natural world that have pushed god into the gaps of scientific understanding, the concept of a personal god has been supplanted by that of a ‘prime mover’ or ‘first cause’ or ‘ground of being’ in the minds of many ‘sophisticated’ theologians. This god is an ineffable being about which no claims can be made and thus is made immune from being disproven. Unfortunately for these ‘sophisticated’ theologians the ineffable and the nonexistent are largely indistinguishable.

Probably the most interesting idea that Dennett presents is the idea of ‘belief in belief’. It’s a fascinating concept that leads one to ask whether people actually believe in their religion or whether they are simply ‘professing’ to believe in their religion. It’s a difficult question to answer since ‘conviction’ is difficult to gage. However, we can draw some conclusions from people’s actual behavior:

1.tBelievers will do things when they think they are alone that they would never do if their mother was standing in the room watching them. This, despite the fact that they presumably believe god is watching them at all times.

2.tBelievers grieve differently at a funeral than they do at the airport when seeing a loved one off. This, despite the fact that in both situations they presumably believe they will be reunited with those departing in the not-too-distant future.

3.tThe fraction of believers who renounce material possessions and dedicate their lives to helping the poor is vanishingly small, despite the fact that it is instructed that they do so in their holy books.

4.tBelievers who receive a diagnosis of a terminal illness do not celebrate as if they had won the lottery even though it means they will soon arrive in an otherworldly paradise of peacefulness and bliss. Instead, they react with shock and horror in the same manner as an atheist who is fully aware that no afterlife exists.

Why are people’s actual behavior so very different from the behaviors you would expect from someone who actually believes the propositions they profess? Do people truly believe what they profess to believe or do they simply ‘believe in belief’? Dennett doesn’t think there is an easy way to scientifically arrive at the truth, but the answer seems obvious. People who desperately wish for something to be true, will fervently do their best to believe it to be true. But reality intrudes. The world around us simply doesn’t support the proposition that god exists (god is missing, evil exists, death appears final). Thus I suspect most people do their best to not think about it very deeply because deep down inside, concealed from the world (and even to the extent they can, even from themselves) they know that religion isn’t true and behave accordingly.

So, what about the book itself? As a philosopher Dennett is trained to ask probing and insightful questions. That’s fine as far as it goes, but in the absence of probing and insightful answers the result is somewhat unsatisfying. Dennett certainly discusses plausible explanations of the phenomenon he observes, but given that ideas do not leave fossil evidence behind we are unlikely to ever know whether the explanations are true or merely a form of ‘Just-So’ story.

Also, Dennett’s style of writing just didn’t work for me. His informal, chatty and meandering style seemed to take forever to get around to the point. I suspect he is writing with the religious adherent in mind and is attempting to carefully and patiently convince them to question their preconceived beliefs. But I found this approach frustrating … like toying with a loose Band-Aid I kept wishing he'd just get on with it and tear it off already.

Ya ne var biliyor musunuz?..
Benden her şey olur da inançsız biri olmaz. Yok yani... Adına ne derseniz deyin, benden daha üstün bir güç olduğunu bilmek bana bir şekilde güç veriyor.

Rabbime şükür.

Kitabı tüm gün elimde dolaştırıp ıkına ıkına, atlaya zıplaya okudum işte.
Diyorum, ateizm benlik değil, bünyeme ters. İnanç bunalımı geçirdiğim zaman da hiç düşünmeden elemiştim kendisini.
Hâlâ aynı düşünüyorum.

Good thoughts but at some points quite difficult language.

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.

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.

His goal in this book is to break the taboo protecting religion from reasoned examination.
Unlike the other atheist author like Dawkins or Hitchens, Dennett goes to great lengths to maintain a congenial and fair treatment of religion.
This is commendable, but cripples his thesis.
Instead of presenting the ample evidence that religion is bad and does harm, Dennett calls for "further study".
In the end, I felt like he didn't go far enough, but it was a fun ride.

Dennett's overuse (abuse) of parenthesis (like this) makes for a very difficult (and confusing) read.

A groundbreaking work addressing the development of religions in terms of memes. But it's 33% appendices, so you might be closer to the end than you realize...