Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2986 in Books
• Published on: 2007-03-29
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 464 pages

Customer Reviews

Broke the spell for me....
I've been a Daniel Dennett fan ever since The Mind's Eye, a mind-opening book he co-authored/edited with Douglas Hofstadter. In similar vein, I was enthralled by Kinds of Minds; and Darwin's Dangerous Idea showed just how extensive and versatile a thinker Dennett is.

So I was surprised to be disappointed by Breaking the Spell. Maybe it's because I'm older and wiser, or maybe I was expecting this book to be something that it wasn't, but it just seemed to lack substance. The essential thesis of the book is that religious belief is no sacred cow, and should be open to the same level of scientific and philosophical investigation as any other sphere of human activity. This much could have been said in less than a page; and Dennett is engaging and entertaining in outlining his arguments; but there is little more substance to the book than this.

For a book subtitled "Religion as a natural phenomenon", and promising on the back blurb "a truly original - and comprehensive - explanation for faith", such an explanation was conspicuous by its absence. Perhaps this is an unfair criticism - this book concentrates more on asking questions than answering them - but Lewis Wolpert's 'Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast' would have fit the cover of this book much better.

Although Dennett is a prominent atheist, he speaks as the very soul of reason, with courtesy and respect for theists, and a dispassionate open-mindedness. To his credit, he avoids the scathe and scorn employed by Dawkins, Sam Harris and others. But here and there his agenda slips through, as in the following quote (p24 of the paperback edition):

"This puts MY sacred values to work: I want the resolution to the world's problems to be as democratic and just as possible, and both democracy and justice depend on getting on the table for all to see as much of the truth as possible, bearing in mind that sometimes the truth hurts, and hence should sometimes be left uncovered, out of love for those who would suffer were it revealed."

I read this sentence several times, wondering whether he meant 'covered' instead of 'uncovered'. I decided not, for two reasons: firstly, Dennett is generally very precise about his choice of words, and secondly he claims in his preface to have 'shared drafts of this book with many readers', some of whom would surely have queried this odd statement. This statement appears to say that democracy and justice are sacred enough that they should be imposed on others 'out of love', even when it hurts them - a view not too dissimilar from that of the Inquisition. (All right, sorry, that was harsh - but it is telling that nowhere does Dennett propose subjecting his own 'sacred values' to the same kind of investigation that he proposes for religion, even though there are those who would question the benefits that democracy has brought to the world.)

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed this book, and I agree with most of what Dennett has to say; I recommend it to any reader interested in questions of faith, religion and philosophy. But if you're looking for a book that will provide a Darwinian deconstruction of faith, this is not it; and for all his courteous objectivity, it is clear what Dennett hopes the answer to his investigation will be. I'm still a Daniel Dennett fan, but this book broke the spell for me.

Dennett's Gentle Attack on Religion
If you're looking at this review, you've probably already read (or are considering reading) End of Faith by Sam Harris and/or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. All three books state the case for reason and against religious faith. Breaking the Spell, however, takes a much softer approach. Harris and Dawkins do not care who they offend. Dennett tries to be gentle and polite. One would think that is a better approach, but that is not how it works out.

Perhaps Dennett is too gentle, or perhaps this argument is one that has to be made forcefully or not at all. In the end, Dennett's book has no audience. The religious won't read it, and won't be convinced. Harris and Dawkins may simply offend most religious people, but they may also convince a few. Atheists like me will prefer Harris and Dawkins.

In the end, this is probably Dennett's worst book. That is not an insult. Dennett is a brilliant philosopher and a wonderful writer. Consciouness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are two of the finest books ever written.

Old questions - still no answers
When I was reading the book from Daniel Dennett, a distinguished philosopher and director of Cambridge institute for cognitive studies, I was expecting to get some answers for questions why do humans believe in any deity or superstition.

Questions like:
- Why 80% of the world population so faithful to some kind of religion ?
- How can this be explained by psychology ?
- Is there a specific genetic predisposition for more religious behavior (nature not nurture) ?
- How is religion replacing the parental love with love for God from a specific age (7-years ?) on ?
- Why is rationality suppresses and what happens then in the brain ? (Like a scientists is writing his PhD for geology and study 500 million year old strata and is leaving his office/lab and *thinks* the earth is 6000 years old)

Dan Dennett is very carefully and `politically correct' talking around the problem to avoid offending anybody and is carefully considering the possibility to ask some of this old questions - unfortunately answers I had hoped for are not provided.