Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

Daniel C. Dennett

3.89 · Rating details · 10,795 ratings · 428 reviews

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 thi ...more

Get A Copy

Or buy for

Hardcover, 448 pages

Published February 24th 2006 by Viking Books (first published January 1st 2006)

More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Breaking the Spell, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

Notable Atheist Books

467 books — 941 voters

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Best Science Books - Non-Fiction Only

1,413 books — 3,119 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

3.89 ·

Rating details

· 10,795 ratings · 428 reviews

Filter

Sort order

Aug 24, 2014 Manny rated it liked it

Recommends it for: Open-minded people curious about religion

Shelves: linguistics-and-philosophy, science, transcendent-experiences, well-i-think-its-funny

As people who read books on evolutionary theory will know, mice sometimes exhibit bizarre behavior, fearlessly walking into the waiting jaws of cats. They do this because they have been infected by the parasite Toxoplasma gondii, which can only reproduce in a cat's digestive tract; the mouse's behavior is thus adaptive, not for the mouse, but rather for the parasite. Dennett uses this as his starting point when discussing the nature of religion. Maybe religions are like T. gondii: they are self- ...more

flag 201 likes · Like · see review

Feb 15, 2008 Marina Keenan rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: People who want to change beliefs that resist their scrutiny

To preface my remarks here, I think it is important that I note Dennett's definition of religion and its implications. He defines religion as social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. Two elements of the definition almost cause me panic as I read them. The first, the fact that any religion is a social system, suggests to me that since one cannot worship a supernatural agent alone, God, a "he" most everywhere you look, is reall To preface my remarks here, I think it is important that I note Dennett's definition of religion and its implications. He defines religion as social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. Two elements of the definition almost cause me panic as I read them. The first, the fact that any religion is a social system, suggests to me that since one cannot worship a supernatural agent alone, God, a "he" most everywhere you look, is really the collective concept of a group of people who are similarly connected socially and religiously. In a recent Good Reads forum based on Dawkins' The God Delusion, most of the faithful who participated suggested that because so many others believed in God throughout history, their study of "scripture" should not be questioned by me or other participants. Alas, none were willing to address the reasons why their church hung pictures of a Jesus who looked more like a white musician from Seattle than someone from Jesus' home town. This scares me because the faithful have confirmed that their minds are not their own and they have lost the ability to think critically about their beliefs. The other part of the definition that almost leads me to panic, that the participants seek approval from a supernatural agent or agents, means that not only is some vaguely defined and socially reinforced God concept granted greater-than-self status in the minds of the faithful, but the agents' "prophets," to whom enough has been revealed to write a bestseller, are granted God's special favor, and their approval must be sought as well. This scenario is made possible by the aforementioned sacrifice of mind, and enables leaders of any religion you'd care to name to compromise its believers in practically any way.

In Breaking the Spell, Dennett demonstrates faith in people's ability to make clear decisions by suggesting that if school children were to study all of the world's religions, they would learn to think critically and be unwilling to sacrifice this ability for the sake of any supernatural agent or prophet. Should students begin to have thoughts that transcend social/religious paradigms and pressures, no current religious system could survive it, and I think that would be a good thing. ...more

flag 41 likes · Like · see review

Oct 06, 2007 Tucker rated it really liked it

An admirable intellectual, Dennett spends the first several chapters carefully establishing the parameters of his discussion. His book addresses the adherents of organized religion: more specifically, those who believe that God is a "who" rather than a "what", and who hold certain sets of beliefs without making them available for rational critique. The title of Dennett's book, "Breaking the Spell," refers his insistence that religious beliefs should be examined logically and scientifically to in An admirable intellectual, Dennett spends the first several chapters carefully establishing the parameters of his discussion. His book addresses the adherents of organized religion: more specifically, those who believe that God is a "who" rather than a "what", and who hold certain sets of beliefs without making them available for rational critique. The title of Dennett's book, "Breaking the Spell," refers his insistence that religious beliefs should be examined logically and scientifically to investigate whether they are true. Beliefs should not be eligible for a cloak of mystery simply because they are religious in nature; furthermore, such a cloak does not enhance the real value of these beliefs.

This is a slow read that requires a good background in philosophy, but it is worth the time and effort. It is full of fascinating ideas, many of them old philosophical standbys with a modern scientific twist. For example, when Dennett compares love for God with romantic love, he looks at the evolutionary basis of romantic feelings and behaviors. He asks how religion benefits our fitness for survival, given that it requires so much of our energy. He notes that some neurologists have postulated a "god center" in the brain, and he clarifies that we may have culturally perpetuated the idea of God only because the idea happens to stimulate the pre-existing "whatsis center," and furthermore, that not every individual may even have such a center.

Dennett's tone is one of cheerful optimism. He thinks religious people often mean well, and he believes that they succeed in living good, moral lives just as often as non-believers do. But he insists that religion is not necessary for moral behavior, and he demands that religious people desist from harming atheists and skeptics. He wants a healthy climate for honest debate and a world where people do not injure each other over such topics. It is a fair and diplomatic book that makes an apparently sound argument. Of the various books I've read by atheists, this is the one of which I'd be most surprised to see a successful refutation. ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Jan 21, 2014 Rod Hilton rated it it was ok

Shelves: audiobooks, have-softcopy, religion

This was my fourth attempt at reading Breaking the Spell. Back when I first got interested in nonbelief, it was one of four books I purchased physical copies of at the bookstore, along with The God Delusion, God is Not Great, and The End of Faith. In fact, it was the first of those four books I decided to read, because I was struggling with my own dwindling faith, and the title seemed the least confrontational so I figured it would be the best to ease myself into things. I quickly got tired of t This was my fourth attempt at reading Breaking the Spell. Back when I first got interested in nonbelief, it was one of four books I purchased physical copies of at the bookstore, along with The God Delusion, God is Not Great, and The End of Faith. In fact, it was the first of those four books I decided to read, because I was struggling with my own dwindling faith, and the title seemed the least confrontational so I figured it would be the best to ease myself into things. I quickly got tired of the book and abandoned it. In fact, I abandoned the whole effort, and it wasn't until a few years later that I resumed my journey by reading The End of Faith, which I really enjoyed and then plowed through the other two books.

I felt guilty that I had skipped over this book, the only one of the "Four Horsemen" books I hadn't read. I wondered if I had perhaps been unfair, and disliked it only because of where I was, and not what the book was. So I picked up the same paperback copy I had purchased years earlier, and again tried to read it. Again, I quickly found myself losing interest, and it was never a book that I "stopped reading", it was just one that I never reached for when I felt like reading.

The third time was shortly after I'd gotten an ebook reader. I figured, with a huge library of books at my fingertips, I'd be more likely to read this one, so I tried once again. I got the ebook version of Breaking the Spell, and for the third time found myself losing interest. I had officially moved this book to my 'will-never-read' shelf on Goodreads, and had resigned myself to simply never bother reading this book. I was bummed about it, and I couldn't quite figure out why I disliked it so much, but there are so many great books out there, I decided I couldn't bother caring any more.

Then, out of nowhere, I was logging into Audible.com one day and noticed that Breaking the Spell had been released on audiobook format. Audiobook! This was the key! I could listen at the gym, on the bus, in the car, and walking around downtown. This was how I was going to get this book read, I thought.

Well, I'm happy to say, I did actually manage to get all the way through Breaking the Spell this time. I am, however, unhappy to say I still hated it, and largely forced myself to complete it out of a weird sense of obligation and completion. Less because I enjoyed the book, and more because I knew this was my last chance.

After getting all the way through it, I finally figured out what it was I hated so much about it, and sharing that will be the entirety of my review of it, aside from the personal historical lesson above.

I've read a lot of these "atheist screed" type books in the past few years. What is interesting is that the background of the authors of each of these books is directly reflected in the content and style of the book itself. Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned scientist and professor, so it's no surprise that "The God Delusion" is written very scientifically, citing as many studies as possible and outlying arguments in a clear, logical way. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, but also has a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy, so The End of Faith is a little less scientific than Dawkins's work, and a bit more meandering. Carl Sagan was a scientist and educator, so The Demon-Haunted World is extremely scientific, but also very approachable and friendly. Christopher Hitchens was a debator, a journalist, so God is Not Great draws upon a lot of current events and political angles, and reads like a very long OpEd piece.

So what's Daniel Dennett? He's a philosopher. If this fact doesn't give you pause, you probably haven't read a lot written by philosophers, or you are one. Philosophers have a tendency to ramble forever, carefully mapping out their argument in excruciating detail. There's a point in the argument where a normal reader might say "alright, I get it" only to discover they are approximately 40% through the entire argument, and must now eye-roll their way through the remaining 60%. Philosopher's seem to like questions more than answers, and like to pose tons and tons of questions, and consider every possible angle about a particular point, including purely hypothetical ones with little to no basis in reality. The short way of saying this is: a lot of philosophers love the sound of their own voices. This is obviously a mean generalization, but I have to admit I've found it to hold true surprisingly often.

Dennett's Breaking the Spell is no exception to this. It is exactly what one might expect from a philosopher, illustrating every negative aspect of stereotypical philosopher writings. Case in point: the first third of the book is spent merely justifying the existence of the rest of the book. What would be a normal author's introductory chapter is, instead, nearly 100 pages of droning about the need for his book. Can science study religion? SHOULD science study religion? Ugh.

In fact, the TITLE of the book, "Breaking the Spell" seems to indicate that the book will be about what we can do to break society free of the cycle of religiosity. The only chapter that even remotely deals with that, "Now What Do We Do?" is the final chapter, a mere 32 pages of the book's 340 (non-appendix) pages. Another (mild) irritation is Dennett's constant citations of his own previous work. I understand if an author wants to point readers to his previous work because it might be interesting, or help articulate a point, but it seems almost comically frequent in Breaking the Spell. There's a palpable sense of pretentiousness.

I don't want to give the wrong impression. It's not that the book contains nothing of value. On the contrary, there are some really enjoyable bits to the book, some really interesting points, and a lot of food for thought. The problem is that of padding: an interesting point that should take up a merel paragraph to be accurately conveyed to a reader might instead consist of a few dozen pages instead. Every moment reading the book feels like wading through haystack after haystack looking for needles. They are nice needles, but you can't help but ask why Dennett couldn't be bothered to simply edit the haystacks out.

There are lots of similar books that are more informative, or more interesting out there, so it's tough to recommend this book. I know a lot of people love it, so I think a big part of the issue is my own general distaste for this particular kind of writing. ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Dec 25, 2008 Paul Fidalgo rated it it was amazing

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).

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Nov 04, 2007 Jamey rated it really liked it

Shelves: religion-culture-criticism

If I understood it, the basic thesis of Dennett's arrogantly titled Consciousness Explained was that consciousness is a phenomenon that emerges from the harmonious orchestration of many smaller, dumber subsystems in the brain. Among the good ideas in Breaking the Spell is the claim that one of these little modules is an "agent detector," and that it's "over-active," so that people experience the wind as the breath of a God; the rain as the God's gift, disease as the presence of exorcisable uncle ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Jan 13, 2016 Miloš Kostić rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

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 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.
...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Dec 06, 2007 Paul rated it it was ok · review of another edition

I really wanted to like this book, because I'd just finished reading The End of Faith and God is Not Great, but this book suffers from lack of conviction. Where The End of Faith is the absolute model of conviction, and God is Not Great lays out convincing arguments (but takes some of their momentum away with dryly humorous asides), Breaking the Spell has neither conviction nor cleverness.

I confess I only read the first couple of chapters, because I lost interest in an author who wasn't willing t ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jan 25, 2011 Jimmy rated it it was amazing

Shelves: atheism

Mr. Dennett is one of the Four Horsemen of Atheism, and a personal hero of mine. In this book, he discusses the need for science to study religion. He points to "an absence of information" about religion. We need to find out why people believe in the supernatural and what the results of those beliefs are. I agree. He presents his case in an easy to read book meant to reach out to a large audience.

Philosophers of religion get very little attention in the world of philosophy.

He points out how th ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jul 21, 2009 Jed rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: theology

I considered for the first time that teaching a child religion might be a form of child abuse. I learned that there might be bio-evolutionary reasons why religions develop and that when we come to see that religion is invented, we need to remember to be gentle with others who might not have seen that. Nonetheless, we owe it to ourselves to consider the costs of religion. It might be that it harms our world more than helps it. If religions were based in fact, we would have to accept that. Since t ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

May 31, 2011 Mike rated it it was ok

It was certainly interesting, and its chief thesis is worth contemplating. I think that were it less philosophical (i.e. speculative b.s.) and more empirical, I would have found it more persuasive--or at least a more enjoyable read. I sound like my students now in saying that I think it could have been written with the same (or greater) effectiveness in about a third of the pages, but in this case it's true. He elaborates in a way that seems more self-indulgent than illuminating. I don't know, I ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Mar 17, 2010 Jennifer rated it it was ok

Shelves: philosophy, evolution

Dennett doesn't offer us much that is new in this book; it's basically a re-presentation of old ideas (we're just robots taking up the intentional stance, religion is a meme to be explained in Darwinian terms, etc), thrown together with a good deal of liberal social commentary, a painfully distorted presentation of Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic belief and practice, and some revisionist history for good measure. It could easily have been two hundred pages shorter if he had cut out all the irrelev ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 19, 2016 Aya Hatem rated it it was ok

Shelves: 2016, إلحاديات

The problem is that there are good spells and then there are bad spells. If only some timely phone call could have interrupted the proceedings at Jonestown in Guyana in 1978, when the lunatic Jim Jones was ordering his hundreds of spellbound followers to commit suicide! If only we could have broken the spell that enticed the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo to release sarin gas in a Tokyo subway, killing a dozen people and injuring thousands more! If only we could figure out some way today to break t ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 08, 2007 Kat rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Everyone

Dennett is a proud atheist, and he does not back away from his convictions. He is able to singlehandedly defeat many Christian conventions that have become acceptable to our modern American society through the use of pure, philosophic logic that works well to break us all out of the spell in which we have been living all of our lives as members of a "Christian Nation" (to quote Sam Harris). He use of example and parable makes the book invaluable to anyone who wants a new way of loking at the con ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 28, 2014 Damon Gubler rated it it was amazing

Shelves: book-club

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.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 24, 2018 Mark Lawry rated it it was amazing

I grew up in the Christian world. My wife in the Muslim world. We both had given up on our respective faiths just in time to find each other. Praise God we did, and life got great. How that happened for both of us would be a very long book. It would probably be very similar to this one. The culture that best represents my wife and I is freedom. Which is to say we don't need walls around us to "defend our culture." Toward the end of Dennett's book you might get my point.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 02, 2012 Adam rated it really liked it

Recommended to Adam by: Andrew

Shelves: anthropology, evolution, non-fiction, philosophy

Dennett is among the nicest scholars I've encountered. He is just eminently reasonable, kind-hearted, and eloquent throughout. The argument he makes in "Breaking the Spell" is almost tamely reasonable: "my central policy recommendation is that we gently, firmly educate the people of the world, so that they can make truly informed choices about their lives." OK, of course, no arguments there, from nearly any quarter.

The bulk of the book is occupied with a much different argument, perhaps an exam Dennett is among the nicest scholars I've encountered. He is just eminently reasonable, kind-hearted, and eloquent throughout. The argument he makes in "Breaking the Spell" is almost tamely reasonable: "my central policy recommendation is that we gently, firmly educate the people of the world, so that they can make truly informed choices about their lives." OK, of course, no arguments there, from nearly any quarter.

The bulk of the book is occupied with a much different argument, perhaps an example of this broader philosophy. Dennett wants scientists to embark upon a massive project to understand religions - their origins, their impacts (good and bad), their psychology, sociology, economics, etc - in short, everything about them that can be addressed scientifically. He makes the argument for two reasons: science on religion has been hampered by a sort of veil of politeness, in which it might be considered offensive to take the often overly forward tools of science to something so dear to so many people; and because religion will play such a large role in large-scale future societal issues that we can't afford to not understand it. These arguments are straightforward and compelling and it's hard to imagine anyone even half-way reasonable objecting to them.

Dennett, I'd like to think correctly, goes on to assume that the reservations of his audience have melted away in the face of his overwhelmingly reasonableness. He spend the bulk of the book fleshing out a popularly-oriented review of theories on the evolution and social impacts of religion, making liberal use of the meme concept he finds so useful. While it is primarily a summary of prior research and an identification of the key open questions in the debate, Dennett doesn't hesitate to flesh the picture out with a starting hypothesis: the one he considers the most persuasive.

This is interesting, but not the sort of thing I'd normally go out of my way to read. Yet it was a true joy to read, for many reasons. Dennett is just a really clear thinker, a wonderful writer who has many nice turns of phrase (half the pages I dog-eared are just for some clever way of articulating a thought I've had or might use). His thoughts on science - what it is, why it is, and how it can be used in social and cultural contexts, are particularly clear and exciting. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 10, 2013 Joe Iacovino rated it liked it

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 examin ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 07, 2012 Adam rated it really liked it

Pros: Dennett's clear and light-hearted (self-effacing even) style of writing has the ability to bring readers from all walks of life into his theories and examples. He weaves evolutionary theory into several disciplines, and isn't as pedantic as some philosophers writing in the same area(s). In Breaking the Spell, he approaches religion from his standard naturalist worldview and posits the question "Cui bono?" (who benefits?) throughout the work as he attempts to explain the origin and survival ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 24, 2009 Tyler rated it it was amazing

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 ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 01, 2007 Matt rated it did not like it

Shelves: the-worst-books-i-have-ever-read

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.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 13, 2012 Aaron Lord rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

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...

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 10, 2017 Todd Martin rated it liked it

Shelves: atheism-religion-philosophy

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 li ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 12, 2019 Carlos Jaramillo rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: 2019, reflexion

Daniel Dennet presenta a la religion desde un punto de vista mas natural. contrario a las formas en las que filosofos abordan el tema, Dennet plantea estudiar este fenomeno bajo las mismas condiciones de cualquier otro fenomeno natural en la naturleza. la gran mayoria del libro trata de explicar sobre como se pudieron haber originado los primeros sistemas de creencias, como estos pudieron tener alguna influencia en la seleccion natural y su consecuente evolucion hacia sistemas de creencias organ ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 14, 2013 John Alt rated it liked it

In Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel Dennett hopes to break the spell--not of religious belief, but of the conviction that it is not a fit subject for scientific inquiry. Never the twain shall meet--this is a bad idea according to Dennett. Stephen Jay Gould wrote of "non-overlapping magisteria," of both science and religion as worthy of respect in their own rights, but unbridgeable, the one to the other.

Dennett takes exception to this, maintaining that religion is a fi In Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel Dennett hopes to break the spell--not of religious belief, but of the conviction that it is not a fit subject for scientific inquiry. Never the twain shall meet--this is a bad idea according to Dennett. Stephen Jay Gould wrote of "non-overlapping magisteria," of both science and religion as worthy of respect in their own rights, but unbridgeable, the one to the other.

Dennett takes exception to this, maintaining that religion is a fit subject for scientific scrutiny, and in doing so he draws upon evolutionary, anthropological and psychological research on the origin and spread of religion. He speculates as to how a primitive belief in ghosts later became a belief in wind spirits, rain gods, wood nymphs, and leprechauns. According to Dennett, as hunter-gatherers became farmers, as they aggregated into prehistoric villages, a need to protect one's own arose--property, spouse, children, crops, livestock. Richard Dawkins' selfish gene no longer served the common weal. That is, genetic kinship among tribe members was not enough in itself to insure Darwinian cooperation. Shared beliefs rather than DNA enforced proper behavior. People became commanded by an authoritarian but vengeful god to do their duty to others not genetic kin.

This is a tidy explanation, tying all up in a neat bundle, but there are the Neanderthals who were not fit inside. At digs of Neanderthal burial sites, something extraordinary was found, something which provides evidence of Neanderthal practices long before ours became the dominantly successful species. Around the burial site and bones of a beloved individual flowers and trinkets were carefully placed. They are extinct now, the Neanderthals, but could this mean that even they had a sense of the spiritual, a regard for an after life? I can see no other way to understand the findings. So much for Dennett's religion as emergent from the need for duty in communities. Something there is that cannot be packaged as well as he would have it. As Yeats put it, "An aging man is but a paltry thing, a tattered coat upon a stick unless soul clap hands, sing, and louder sing for every tatter in his mortal dress." Religion was informed by spiritual as well as moral needs.

Dennett draws upon the concept of memes--scientifically unverifiable and another Dawkins concept--to explain how primitive beliefs evolved into modern religions. "Every minister in every faith is like a jazz musician keeping traditions alive by playing the beloved standards . . . but mixing familiarity and novelty in just the right proportions to grab the minds and hearts of their hosts." Hosts here is meant to mean the same as an unsuspecting, sometimes insentient host for a virus, a parasite. According to Dennett, people are dumb, unwitting hosts for memes, in this case religious beliefs. I will add, they are also hosts for the vaunted faith in the scientific model as the only true way of understanding the universe.

Sorry, Daniel, but I cannot get there from here. Nor can you. Dennett is playing in a mind-field, one that eventually will explain nothing and sets off duds.

Although I do not have interest or belief in the dogma or doctrine of any religion, I do see all religions as serving a deep, human need. (I think Dennett would agree with me on this while he holds that humankind would be better off without the need.) The need is not served by a flawed scientific paradigm in which the objects of scientific investigation somehow are supposed to provide meaning. (Else, why are they pursued?) I am reminded of Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, who famously remarked, “the more we find out about the universe, the more meaningless it all seems.” Meaningless, because science ignores the other magisterium, which at its core--though not always in tenets--points to what we all are, and teaches that fulfillment-meaning cannot be found in the objects of scientific research. John Gray continues for me.

"One cannot make a sharp distinction between natural processes and supernatural agents unless one presupposes a view of the world something like that presented in the biblical creation story, and the distinction is not found in most of the world's religions. For example, in animism - which must rank as the oldest and most universal religion - spirits are seen as part of the natural world.

More fundamentally, it is a mistake to assume that belief is the core of religion. This may seem self-evident to many philosophers, but in fact belief is not very important in most religions. Even within Christianity there are traditions, such as Eastern Orthodoxy, in which it has never been central. For the majority of humankind, religion has always been about practice rather than belief. In fixating on the belief-content of religion, Dennett emulates Christianity at its most rationalistic and dogmatic. Pascal knew better, and understood that faith is not so much the basis of the religious life as a derivative from it. Dennett mocks those who say that life without faith has no meaning as "believers in belief". Yet he displays a zealous faith in unbelief that is far more inimical to doubt, and there is more scepticism in a single line of the Pensees than in the whole of Dennett's leaden tome.

Breaking the Spell approaches its subject with a relentless, simple-minded cleverness that precludes anything like profundity, and much of it seems designed to demonstrate the author's intellectual ingenuity rather than to advance the reader's understanding." ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 11, 2019 Kübra Yağmur Aslanhan added it · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

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.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 04, 2010 Rebecca rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: anyone

There are lots of different kinds of atheist books out there, and contrary to popular (mis)conception, they are not all angry, nor are all they all written by scientists with an axe to grind against the creationists. I have read some of the angry books, and while I enjoyed them, I certainly wouldn't recommend them to a religious believer, because they would only succeed in raising the believer's hackles and putting them in such a defensive position that all debate would be stonewalled. It's not There are lots of different kinds of atheist books out there, and contrary to popular (mis)conception, they are not all angry, nor are all they all written by scientists with an axe to grind against the creationists. I have read some of the angry books, and while I enjoyed them, I certainly wouldn't recommend them to a religious believer, because they would only succeed in raising the believer's hackles and putting them in such a defensive position that all debate would be stonewalled. It's not an issue of "respect" (because the primary point of being an atheist is that religious beliefs don't deserve respect) but rather one of intention and the tone that goes along with that intention. If your intention – like Christopher Hitchens' – is to rock the boat and make complacent atheists or noncommital agnostics realize all the work that needs to be done, then your tone should rightfully be impassioned and indignant. Dennett's intention in Breaking the Spell is different. His goal is to assuage believers' fears about conversing with an atheist, put them at their ease, and talk about a few specific issues calmly and rationally with the goal of getting people to think more clearly about several unspoken and traditionally taboo subjects. No histrionics, no hyperbole, no accusations – just letting the facts speak for themselves. Needless to say, there are atheists (like me) who find this approach refreshing and more approachable than the writings of people like Hitchens, which, while still important and necessary, are not the kinds of books you can necessarily give to a religious person unless you are intending to piss them off.

Dennett's book is so well-reasoned, well-argued, and well-written that you could give it to your doddering old grandmother, who has followed Jesus her entire life, and chances are she would not feel unduly scandalized by what the book says (especially if she already accepts evolution as a fact of life, which Dennett chooses not to convince people of in this book, since he has an entire other book devoted to that topic). Dennett is not ambiguous about his stance as an atheist or his belief that religion is not a prerequisite for moral behavior, but he is open-minded about so many issues and trusts so much in the scientific method and reasoned debate to resolve problems that you can't help but respect and like him and his common sense approach. True, if you are a real dyed-in-the-wool Bible-beater, you will find the entire premise of this book – that religion has evolved naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) over the course of recent human history under specific circumstances and its evolution and appeal through the ages can be explained through understanding human psychology and sociology – offensive and disrespectful. But finding something disrespectful is not the same as proving something wrong, and it also doesn't do away with your ability (obligation, even) to confront the evidence that the other side has assembled. The surest way to support your point of view and convince people of its validity, after all, is to allow it to stand on its own in the full light of inquiry. And even if you are afraid of the results, you cannot deny more courageous minds the right to discover them. Dennett does an excellent job of not setting up a straw-man argument – he lets the religious point of view shine through in each chapter and even goes to some length to show how these viewpoints could be right, while ultimately showing that they are not all that persuasive when examined more carefully from a wider perspective on human history.
...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 13, 2018 Abbas rated it it was amazing

Quite an enjoyable and informative listen. Thid book tackles the subject with great sensitivity and accuracy. The book doesn't really talk about wether religion is correct or not but talks about why we should investigate that question in a broad manner. The arguments mentioned in this book should be delivered to all people to seek a better future.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 27, 2010 Rowland Pasaribu rated it liked it

Whoever would have guessed the pineapple had such an interesting history. It's early association with the explorations of new worlds and the wonder of new new tastes and the marvels of an expanding concept of geography made it tremendously appealing to the royalty and the rich of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. No costs were spared to possess, and indeed to cultivate this amazing and delicate treasure. Although a bit over informed by the end of the book I was, never-the-less entertained Whoever would have guessed the pineapple had such an interesting history. It's early association with the explorations of new worlds and the wonder of new new tastes and the marvels of an expanding concept of geography made it tremendously appealing to the royalty and the rich of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. No costs were spared to possess, and indeed to cultivate this amazing and delicate treasure. Although a bit over informed by the end of the book I was, never-the-less entertained by the stories of this fruit's conquest of the west.

Breaking The Spell by Daniel C. Dennett 2006 Penguin Group

Ok some people are just smart. And sometimes it is so gratifying to find that a smart person has put into words the way you have felt all along. And done it to rigorous academic standards. Thank you Daniel Dennett for writing this book.

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" examines religion from a dispassionate, biological, evolutionary perspective. It asks readers to put aside all emotional filters and look at the subject objectively, from the vantage of the present going back to the beginnings of religion once humans began developing speech. In the beginning was the word", he explains. But actually Dennet brings us much further back to the origins of life itself and the forces that allowed and encouraged it's survival. Religion must be viewed as a choice life made to carry for some kind of advantage it provided for survival. From these elementary beginnings Dennet follows the evolution of religion, of faith and of spirituality through the ages. Throughout Dennett challenges the reader to examine what is belief and what is belief in belief.

I found this book exhilarating. It is very well written and only occasionally did I find myself having to reread a page or two to keep up with him. But that's my problem. What I mean to say is that the book is accessible to the lay reader. It is full of compelling stories, illumination, compassion and surprise. I feel smarter for having read it. I want everyone to read it.

"...modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the Golden Calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Dawkins

"What these people have realized is one of the best secrets of life: Let your self go. If you can approach the world's complexities, both it's glories and it's horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only just scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. That, I propose, is the secret to spirituality, and it has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul, or in anything supernatural."
...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 08, 2012 Ron rated it really liked it

Shelves: nonfiction

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 def 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. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Is Dennett being reasonable?	5	51	Sep 13, 2013 05:58AM
Open minds lead to peace?	5	55	Sep 16, 2008 10:41AM

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

Philosophy

490 users

Religion

468 users

Nonfiction

382 users

Science

234 users

Religion > Atheism

183 users

Psychology

78 users

See top shelves…

About Daniel C. Dennett

Daniel C. Dennett

1,841 followers

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 move ...more

Books by Daniel C. Dennett

Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking

Kinds of Minds: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness

More…

Trivia About Breaking the Spel...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Breaking the Spel...

“If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things.” — 233 likes

“People are afraid of being more ignorant than their children―especially, apparantly, their daughters.” — 31 likes

More quotes…