Buy new:
$12.00$12.00
FREE delivery:
June 1 - 2
Ships from: PAYLESS-BOOKS Sold by: PAYLESS-BOOKS
Buy used: $10.69
Other Sellers on Amazon
FREE Shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
FREE Shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
FREE Shipping
98% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Hardcover – February 2, 2006
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length464 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherViking Adult
- Publication dateFebruary 2, 2006
- Reading age18 years and up
- Dimensions6.32 x 1.52 x 9.24 inches
- ISBN-10067003472X
- ISBN-13978-0670034727
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together

What do customers buy after viewing this item?
- Most purchasedin this set of products
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the DarkPaperback
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From Scientific American
George Johnson, a 2005 Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellow in Science and Religion, is author of Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order and six other books.
From Bookmarks Magazine
Copyright © 2004 Phillips & Nelson Media, Inc.
From Booklist
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Viking Adult; First Edition (February 2, 2006)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 464 pages
- ISBN-10 : 067003472X
- ISBN-13 : 978-0670034727
- Reading age : 18 years and up
- Item Weight : 3.15 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.32 x 1.52 x 9.24 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #143,282 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #159 in Religion & Philosophy (Books)
- #3,409 in Philosophy (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Dennett first asks the question as to why `religion' has traditionally been granted a special exemption from scientific investigation-a kind of taboo. "Up to now there has been a largely unexamined mutual agreement that scientists and other researchers will leave religion alone...I intend to disrupt this assumption". He contends that there is much to be gained from a thorough examination of its evolutionary origins, and its ultimate role and place in the modern world. Readers may be surprised at what science is finding with regard to the nature and origin of religion.
Dennett essentially contends that religion is a social phenomenon that has evolved with both benefits and costs, and a deeper understanding of both of these will provide better and more informed input to social policy.
Dennett's definition of religion is thus: "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought" p9. This definition, however, is by no means satisfying to everyone.
He gives some recent theories as to the evolutionary origin/purpose(s) of religion (p82):
-Sweet tooth theories-a kind of drug (e.g. Karl Marx's `opiate of the masses') that triggers receptors within the brain (a `whatis centre'), similar to our evolved sweet tooth. What `religion' `satisfies' may not even be related to the original function of whatever receptor(s) involved may have evolved for. The idea of `god' may be "the latest and most intense confection that triggers the `whatsis' centre in so many people".
-Symbiont theories: these involve memes (ideas) competing within our brains and within the larger community of ideas by spreading themselves using whatever means best promotes their replication, (e.g. white lies, exaggerated self-esteem etc), rather than by what is necessarily true. The memes may be mutualists-proliferating by enhancing human fitness, just as bacteria in our gut do; or parasites-deleterious replicators that are hard to get rid of and which have evolved complex defences, often exploiting pre-existing human characteristics to enhance their replication. (e.g. an evolved gullibility in children-p130 "once the information highway is established between parent and child by genetic evolution, it is ready to be used or abused ...by any memes that have features that benefit from the biases built into the highway"). Certain religious memes may `hijack' an evolved capacity for romantic love (p256). Another interesting biological parallel is that "a relatively benign or harmless symbiont may mutate under some conditions into something virulent and even deadly" (p85), which can also happen to religious movements.
-`Sexual selection' theories are another possibility-females may have selected religious males due to perceived benefits, e.g. enhanced family life.
-`Pearl theory' is another angle-the brain responds to `irritations', like a pearl within an oyster, and constructs complex social phenomenon for no other reason than what is purely biochemical.
Still other theories are alluded to: e.g. religion evolved to improve co-operation within groups, or HADD-religion as a hyperactive detection device which developed from a hyperactive suspicion of predators/agent/intent into the `god/ultimate cause' concept.
Importantly, Dennett notes that what we call `religion' may well be an amalgam of any number of the above theories.
A common evolutionary analysis of any biological adaptation is, who pays for it? Who pays for religion? Dennett gives 3 possibilities: 1) everybody does-as a more secure society develops; 2) religion is a kind of pyramid scheme, which thrives on the ill-informed and largely benefits those at the top; and 3) whole societies benefit-as a form of group selection over other groups.
How `folk religion' turns into `organized religion' is dealt with in detail. There is also a brief economic analysis of religion (p183), perhaps best understood as simply just another business.
One aspect of religion is highlighted-its tendency to routinely disregard other ideas/cultures (incidentally, not just confined to `religion'). Dawkins p230-"the meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry". I think there is more here, perhaps an evolutionary mindset evolved (irrespective of memes) to disregard ALL alternatives in certain contexts-e.g. in war- involving a focused survival mindset/cause etc, but which unfortunately can be triggered outside of `war' contexts, and therefore commonly interferes with rational social policy. It may just be that we should discourage the tendency in any culture to that predisposition which departs from social responsibility in order to achieve social objectives through mindset/ideology.
The question as to whether `religion' makes us more moral, (Chapter 10), is a traditionally difficult question, but in any case Dennett gives examples where religious beliefs are far from moral (p278).
The biologist Ernst Mayr was of the opinion that there is nothing within evolutionary theory to select for the natural acceptance of strangers, and Dennett does mention that within Judaism, Christianity and Islam, apostasy (non belief/non-believers) has traditionally been regarded as a capital offense, however "Islam stands alone in its inability to renounce this barbaric doctrine convincingly". (Possibly, but it may be that the other 2 accidentally renounced it through accidents of geography- their history is no better than Islam).
Another point raised is how come so many Americans disbelieve in evolution? (p60). Dennett states that the answer is simply "they have been solemnly told that the theory is false", but this may not be the end of it-some researchers consider the tendency to reject evolutionary thinking is itself an evolved predisposition-i.e., we haven't evolved to understand all that well the reasons for our own evolution, possibly because it conflicts with our evolved disposition towards certain social constructions-i.e. moral order, bureaucratic stability, and non-tolerance of significant minorities (`significant minorities' is how evolution often works).
Overall, Dennett's discussion is largely toward a memetic analysis, which I personally find frequently under-estimates the dual role of human predisposition in social expression.
Lots of brain food here. It is possible that the future of humanity lies in the ramifications of at least some of these ideas. Certainly, open discussion is warranted.
Dennett says (p15 of the pb) "It is high time that we subject religion... to the most intensive multidisciplinary research we can muster ... it is imperative that we learn as much as we can about it. That in a nutshell, is the argument of this book." But in fact, that is not what the book delivers.
The idea that religion can and should be investigated by science ought to be no more than common sense: Religious behavior is human behavior; as such it is the legitimate study of sociology, anthropology, and political science. Religious thinking is human thinking; as such, it is the legitimate study of psychology and philosophy.
There should be nothing whatever controversial about those ideas. But they are controversial in some quarters, and too often scientists have shied away from religion as a subject, out for fear of being caught in controversy.
Dennett should have done us all a great service by, first, showing how the objections to such studies are not well-grounded; that the fears of believers are easily assuaged; and that the possible rewards, in terms of discoveries to be made and academic honors to be won, are great.
Second, he could have delineated the shape of a research program. "These are the great unanswered questions about religious behavior," he could have said, and ticked them off. "These are the unresolved issues... these are the main points of ignorance that prevent us from resolving them... and these are some research approaches that might bear fruit." In short, Dennett could have done for sociology and psychology what David Hilbert did when in 1900 he laid out the great unsolved problems of mathematics. And he could have done it in 100 pages, max.
Unfortunately he does not do that, and what he does sprawls over 400 discursive and unfocussed pages. Sometimes the discursions are charming! If you are in general agreement with him, reading Dennett can be like sitting down for a stimulating conversation with a genial, articulate, and hugely well-informed host. But sometimes the digressions into side-issues only made me mutter, "c'mon Dan, get to the point."
Far from being a call to find out the true nature of religion, most of the book consists of Dennett sketching -- and it is no more than a sketch -- his own understanding of what religion is, how it arose, and how it works in society today. In other words, he _explains_ exactly the things he claims need to be _studied_.
Dennett seems to base his explanation on what he treats as a well-established science of memetics. He summarizes that in an appendix ("The New Replicators") and applies it to explain many of the features of religion. I don't think memetics is as well-established as all that, certainly not backed by the kind of repeatable, measurable science that would let meme-based explanations be more than good story-telling.
The reader, whether she accepts memetics as a sound explanatory base or not, cannot help wondering, if it is all so clearly understood as Dennett presents, why do you think we need so much research? Or, if research is really needed, why are you trying to frame all its hypotheses in advance? Isn't that for the investigators to do?
At one point Dennett feels compelled to address the arguments for the existence of God. He makes this out to be an important issue, foreshadowing it in chapter 1 and finally getting to it at the end of chapter 7. Nevertheless, at several points in between, he takes pains to point out that the study of religious behavior can be done without taking any position on the nature or existence of God (and, therefore, believers shouldn't fear scientists with clipboards). That's true, and it simply baffles me why Dennett still finds it important to take a very clear position on just that issue! I personally am an atheist, and in another context I'd enjoy a spell of theism-bashing as much as anyone, but in this book it is inappropriate, unnecessary, and worse, exactly calculated to antagonize the very people Dennett most needs to persuade! In much of the book he is saying "religion needs to be examined and you don't need to be an atheist to support or to carry out such examinations." Then he feels compelled to say, "...but I'm an atheist and here is why anyone who isn't one, is wrong."
Worse, he doesn't even do a good job of addressing those arguments for God. After explicitly deferring it more than once to clear the ground, he finally announces he's ready to do it; then he gives us only a shallow, dismissive 7-page summary of a few of the main arguments. You might say, he didn't have room for a full-on philosophical defense of atheism. Very true; so why does he have it at all? Lack of space to do it justice is just one of the several good reasons he shouldn't have touched the topic.
In the final chapter (under the rather feeble and hesitant title "Now What Do We Do?") Dennet gets around to suggesting areas for further research. But the suggested questions are uneven, ranging from the irrelevant "Could an ape... concoct the counter-intuitive combination of ... an invisible banana?") to the completely insoluble ("What were our ancestors like before there was anything like religion?") to the impossibly vague ("Why do people join groups?").
David Hilbert galvanized mathethematics by listing problems that were specific, hard, but potentially soluble, and whose solutions would crack open whole new fields of interest. Dennett has provided a fuzzy list of philosophical chestnuts whose solutions, if they are possible at all, would lead only to more controversy and hot air. Inside this book is a skinny, tough-minded pamphlet crying to be let out. I wish someone could rescue it.
Top reviews from other countries
Compared to his atheist cohorts (in particular, his fellow horsemen Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins), Dennett is less interested in attacking religion than in understanding what we can learn about this curious phenomenon, in particular from its origins and development. Objections are pre-empted and answered calmly and persuasively. Statements are qualified and clarified to a degree that might even infuriate some readers. Bringing with him a wealth of evolutionary, anthropological and psychological research, he is never afraid to point out where more research is needed, even if this means holding back from winning an argument. Don't, however, dismiss Dennett's book as an apology; it should be welcomed as a rigorous and respectful contribution to the debate.
The title and opening chapter title tend to give away a great deal about the thinking though; "... the Spell" and "Opening Pandora's Box". Spells tend to suggest the irrational under another's control and all the evils of the world released from "Pandora's Box" - Pandora, the "all-gifted" - suggests a mind-set. However, do not let this detract from his considered thinking.
His first section, divided into three, then sub-divided into fives, examines the nature of religion, its relationship (if any) to science and various linked ideas to the idea of religion as a natural phenomenon but also asking the question "Cui bono"?
The second section, divided into eight then sub-divided into up to eight, looks at religion's early and modern days, the organisation of religion and ends with "Does God Exist?" The best until last?
Section three is divided into three sections, sub-divided into fours, beginning with "The Buyer's Guide to Religions" and ending with "Now What do We Do?" after a short section on Richard Dawkin's "memes" theory (also explored extensively by Susan Blackmore).
The appendices are thirty pages long, notes twenty-three and the bibliography fourteen. This is not an irrational diatribe by an evangelising fundamentalist with a badge stating the agenda, although he does have one and his position is very clear, particularly to anyone who is familiar with his writing. It is a series of inter-connected ideas outlining why he believes what he does and tackling some of the major issues in this arena, e.g. does science have anything to say to or about religion (and "vice versa"?).
For reasons I cannot remember but probably more to do with the book's arrival than a deliberate choice of holiday reading, I found myself carrying it around the Acropolis into the temple of Athena Parthenos,the Erechtheum and Parthenon; anyone who has climbed the Athenean Acropolis in the Greek summer will know it is a struggle not for the faint-hearted. Carrying this heavy tome in an already heavy camera bag made it even more of an adventure. However, on arriving at an even keel, it made fascinating, restful reading in the coffee shop, Dennett and a cooling drink in front, the temples behind.
The approach is a slightly irritating and an odd mixture of academic, discursive, and occasionally colloquial styles(lots of asides in brackets finishing with an exclamation mark!). Dennett does sometimes go off on a tangent and you may find yourself flicking ahead to see when the book will get interesting again.
However, if you can get past the ideosyncratic writing there are lots of very interesting ideas and original ways of looking at religion and spirituality.
If you enjoyed Richard Dawkins, then this is a new perspective on some of his ideas. It isn't as easy to follow but it is worth exploring.












