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 like Santa Claus for goodness sake). The only people who could take offense to the book are those with chips on their shoulders who have already decided that a rational discussion of religion is a topic forbidden from examination.So what is Dennett claiming?1.Religion is a natural phenomenon (as opposed to being supernatural, not surprising since there is no evidence supporting the existence of the latter).2.Religions roots are found in the predisposition of humans to perceive agency. Agency is the sense that there is a consciousness responsible for specific actions. This heuristic (mental shortcut) works well much of the time. When we see someone pick up a object we assume its because the person performing the action has a desire to pick it up. However, this approach goes awry when agency is associated with natural events for example - my crops failed because the spirits were offended by something I did or failed to do. Its a short jump from perceived agency to the animistic gods who control winds, water and weather and from there to the judgmental gods who are preternaturally concerned with the things you do with your clothes off.3.Religion spreads through stories, and only the best stories survive. Much like evolution through natural selection the weakest ideas are culled from the herd while the fittest persist. Thus mythologies are refined over time to become ever more interesting and resonant and therefore more likely to be propagated - a concept captured by what Richard Dawkins has dubbed a meme (cultural information that is transmitted by repetition and replication in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes).4.Some of the means used by religions to make themselves more robust as memes include: ceremony, ritual, music, recitation, celebration, repetition and basically everything else you associate with a church service. More recently churches have turned to marketing of their product much like is done for other commercial products or services.5.Another factor playing a role in religions tenacity is a prevalence of what Dennett calls belief in belief. Some people believe in god, but many more (including some atheists) feel belief, in and of itself is a good thing. Thus many profess belief whether or not they are truly believers because they think its the right thing to do.6.Faced with scientific explanations of the natural world that have pushed god into the gaps of scientific understanding, the concept of a personal god has been supplanted by that of a prime mover or first cause or ground of being in the minds of many sophisticated theologians. This god is an ineffable being about which no claims can be made and thus is made immune from being disproven. Unfortunately for these sophisticated theologians the ineffable and the nonexistent are largely indistinguishable. Probably the most interesting idea that Dennett presents is the idea of belief in belief. Its a fascinating concept that leads one to ask whether people actually believe in their religion or whether they are simply professing to believe in their religion. Its a difficult question to answer since conviction is difficult to gage. However, we can draw some conclusions from peoples actual behavior:1.Believers will do things when they think they are alone that they would never do if their mother was standing in the room watching them. This, despite the fact that they presumably believe god is watching them at all times. 2.Believers grieve differently at a funeral than they do at the airport when seeing a loved one off. This, despite the fact that in both situations they presumably believe they will be reunited with those departing in the not-too-distant future. 3.The fraction of believers who renounce material possessions and dedicate their lives to helping the poor is vanishingly small, despite the fact that it is instructed that they do so in their holy books.4.Believers who receive a diagnosis of a terminal illness do not celebrate as if they had won the lottery even though it means they will soon arrive in an otherworldly paradise of peacefulness and bliss. Instead, they react with shock and horror in the same manner as an atheist who is fully aware that no afterlife exists.Why are peoples actual behavior so very different from the behaviors you would expect from someone who actually believes the propositions they profess? Do people truly believe what they profess to believe or do they simply believe in belief? Dennett doesnt think there is an easy way to scientifically arrive at the truth, but the answer seems obvious. People who desperately wish for something to be true, will fervently do their best to believe it to be true. But reality intrudes. The world around us simply doesnt support the proposition that god exists (god is missing, evil exists, death appears final). Thus I suspect most people do their best to not think about it very deeply because deep down inside, concealed from the world (and even to the extent they can, even from themselves) they know that religion isnt true and behave accordingly. So, what about the book itself? As a philosopher Dennett is trained to ask probing and insightful questions. Thats fine as far as it goes, but in the absence of probing and insightful answers the result is somewhat unsatisfying. Dennett certainly discusses plausible explanations of the phenomenon he observes, but given that ideas do not leave fossil evidence behind we are unlikely to ever know whether the explanations are true or merely a form of Just-So story.Also, Dennetts style of writing just didnt work for me. His informal, chatty and meandering style seemed to take forever to get around to the point. I suspect he is writing with the religious adherent in mind and is attempting to carefully and patiently convince them to question their preconceived beliefs. But I found this approach frustrating like toying with a loose Band-Aid I kept wishing he'd just get on with it and tear it off already.

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.

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.