Breaking the Spell (Dennett book)


Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is a 2006 book by American philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, in which the author argues that religion is in need of scientific analysis so that its nature and future may be better understood. The "spell" that requires "breaking" is not religious belief itself but the belief that it is off-limits to or beyond scientific inquiry.

Synopsis

The book is divided into three parts. Dennett's working definition of religions is: "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought". He notes that this definition is "a place to start, not something carved in stone".
Part I discusses the motivation and justification for the entire project: Can science study religion? Should science study religion? Dennett addresses the proposal by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion represent non-overlapping magisteria ; science dealing with facts while religion deals with values, morality, and personal meanings. Noting that NOMA drew few adherents from either side, and that Gould's thesis is itself based upon a scientific view of the issues, Dennett concludes that religion must be open to scientific investigation.
Part II proceeds to use the tools of evolutionary biology and memetics to suggest possible theories regarding the origin of religion and subsequent evolution of modern religions from ancient folk beliefs.
Part III analyzes religion and its effects in today's world: Does religion make us moral? Is religion what gives meaning to life? What should we teach the children? Dennett bases much of his analysis on empirical evidence, though he often points out that much more research in this field is needed.

Critical reception

Mass media

The Guardians Andrew Brown describes it as giving "a very forceful and lucid account of the reasons why we need to study religious behaviour as a human phenomenon".
In Scientific American, George Johnson describes the book's main draw as being "a sharp synthesis of a library of evolutionary, anthropological and psychological research on the origin and spread of religion".

Biological sciences

In The New Yorker, evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr described the book as "an accessible account of what might be called the natural history of religion".

Religious community

Leon Wieseltier, former member of the editorial board of the Jewish Review of Books, called the book, in The New York Times, "a sorry instance of present-day scientism" which he labels a superstition.
Charles T. Rubin, professor emeritus of political science at Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit, likened Dennett to "a tone-deaf music scholar", criticized his "unwillingness to admit the limits of scientific rationality" and accused him of "deploying the same old Enlightenment tropes that didn't work all that well the first time around".

Philosophical

Edward Feser and Karlyn Bowman criticize his interpretation of theistic arguments, whilst maintaining praise for his passages on cognitive neuroscience.
Roger Scruton both praised and criticised Dennett's book in his book On Human Nature, endorsing his intellectual bravery and imaginative writing, yet criticising his reliance on the meme theory, and remaining sceptical of his view that all areas of human consciousness can be accessible through the neo-Darwinian human model alone.
Philosopher and theologian David B. Hart finds Dennett to be dogmatic, a "Darwinian fundimentalist".

Social sciences

Sociologist Penny Edgell, who specializes in morals and religion, find the book frustrating in its combination of worthy scholarship and polemics.

Other disciplines

In The New York Review of Books, Freeman Dyson wrote:

Translations

Breaking the Spell has been translated into several other languages, including:

Other reviews