Analysis

Breaking the Spell

In the ongoing discourse about the existence of a higher power, the problem of evil persistently stirs debate. Charles Darwin found himself puzzled by the cruelty he observed in nature, which seemed at odds with the notion of a benevolent deity. Similarly, Daniel Dennett, in his book Breaking the Spell, questions religious belief systems by comparing them to parasitic entities in nature.

The Problem of Evil and Its Natural Analogies

Darwin observed the harsh realities of nature, including the predatory behavior of ichneumon wasps, which lay eggs inside living caterpillars, causing immense suffering to their hosts. This observation challenged the idea of a compassionate Creator. Dennett draws a parallel with parasitic worms that commandeer the brains of ants, forcing them to climb grass where they are eaten by grazing animals, a necessary step for the parasite's life cycle. He uses this grim analogy to suggest that religious ideas may function as mental parasites, compelling humanity to act irrationally, or worse, self-destructively. Dennett's skepticism about religion is clear, as he frames religious beliefs as potentially harmful forces.

A Call for Scientific Scrutiny of Religion

In an era where atheism is still stigmatized, Dennett attempts to rebrand non-belief by introducing terms like “bright” to symbolize atheists. His previous works, such as Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, expand on the role of natural selection in explaining the complexities of life, extending this evolutionary lens to human constructs like culture and ethics. With Breaking the Spell, Dennett advocates for the scientific study of religion, arguing that it is too significant a force in human history and society to be left unexamined by empirical inquiry. He suggests that, left unchecked, religious fervor combined with modern weaponry could threaten global stability.

Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

Dennett acknowledges his atheistic stance as a minority viewpoint, yet sees it gaining traction, particularly among the educated. He draws inspiration from historical figures like David Hume, John Locke, and William James, though critics note discrepancies in their philosophical positions compared to Dennett’s. Contemporary voices like Stephen Jay Gould argue for a separation of domains between science and religion, suggesting that each has its own territory—observable facts for science, morality and meaning for religion. Dennett, however, dismisses such divides, urging for a scientific interrogation of religious beliefs.

Structuring the Study of Religion

Dennett outlines his exploration of religion in three segments: the application of scientific methods to religious phenomena, the evolutionary trajectory of religions, and the potential for both positive and negative impacts of contemporary religions. He employs the concept of memes, akin to genes but cultural instead of genetic, to explain the propagation of religious and cultural ideas. Although the analogy between genes and memes is disputed for its lack of clarity, Dennett believes it strengthens his thesis that some religions are "culturally evolved parasites," insinuating detrimental ideas into their followers.

The Evolution and Diversification of Religion

Religious beliefs, according to Dennett, have proliferated over millennia, with over a million religions historically documented. The appeal of religions is multifaceted: they offer comfort in hardship, meaning in life, and a bulwark against existential fears, among other benefits. Despite this, Dennett asserts that the scientific method holds the potential to uncover the true reasons behind religion's endurance and popularity. He suggests that religious systems may have survived through a Darwinian-like competition amongst belief systems, where only the most adaptive and appealing doctrines persist.

From Animism to Organized Religion

Early human religions were animistic, attributing spirits to natural elements and phenomena. Over time, this evolved into organized systems with set doctrines, often insulated from scrutiny. Dennett posits that belief systems without unassailable...

(This entire section contains 909 words.)

Unlock this Study Guide Now

Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

Already a member? Log in here.

dogmas fail to qualify as religions. The transition from folk to organized religion encompassed the "belief in belief," where individuals may not genuinely hold divine beliefs but see religion as beneficial to society. Dennett contends that many religious adherents are atheists concerning all gods but their own, highlighting the varied belief structures within and across religions.

Challenges to Rational Justifications of Faith

While some theologians, like Thomas Aquinas, have strived to rationally substantiate God's existence, others, like Mircea Eliade, argue that religious experiences are comprehensible only from within, resisting external analysis. Dennett labels such approaches "pre-emptive disqualification," advocating instead for analyzing religion from an objective standpoint.

Empirical Investigations and Moral Implications

Empirical attempts to test religious claims, such as the efficacy of prayer in healing, have yielded mixed outcomes. Dennett dismisses studies comparing the morality of religious individuals to atheists as he sees no inherent link between spirituality and ethical behavior. He champions Enlightenment values and Darwinian principles as the foundation for a secular morality, aiming to deploy these to address environmental and societal challenges.

Reception and Criticism

Unsurprisingly, Breaking the Spell sparked controversy. Religious critics accused Dennett of misunderstanding the essence of religious experience, while secular reviewers criticized his perceived scientism—an overreliance on scientific approaches to answer all questions, potentially elevating science to a pseudo-religious status. Dennett and his supporters maintain that science is anchored in evidence rather than belief, contrasting with religious doctrine. Yet, opponents argue that both religious and atheistic ideologies are capable of casting spells, suggesting that Dennett's rationalism might itself be a dogma in need of scrutiny.

Ultimately, science and religion remain pivotal in shaping human understanding and experience. Both can be wielded for considerable good or ill, as history attests. Dennett's work gives voice to the tension between these domains, highlighting the delicate balance in navigating their coexistence in a complex world.

Bibliography

Booklist 102, nos. 9/10 (January 1, 2006): 27.
Christianity Today 50, no. 5 (May, 2006): 68-69.
Commonweal 133, no. 5 (March 10, 2006): 20-23.
The Economist 378 (February 11, 2006): 78-79.
Kirkus Reviews 74, no. 1 (January 1, 2006): 25.
Library Journal 131, no. 1 (January, 2006): 123.
Nature 439 (February 2, 2006): 535.
New Scientist 189 (March 4, 2006): 48-49.
New Statesman 135 (March 20, 2006): 50-51.
The New York Review of Books 53, no. 11 (June 22, 2006): 4-8.
The New York Times Book Review 155 (February 19, 2006): 11-12.
The New Yorker 82, no. 7 (April 3, 2006): 80-83.
Publishers Weekly 252, no. 47 (November 28, 2005): 47.
Science 311 (January 27, 2006): 471-472.
Scientific American 294, no. 1 (January, 2006): 94-95.