Breaking the Spell

[sawyl]

I've been reading Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett's investigation of religion, on the bus for the last two months but my endless, brief, interrupted spells of reading have finally paid off. Here are a few thoughts on this wonderful, endlessly fascinating book.

Rather than examine the question of whether God exists — ground already covered by Dawkins — Dennet concentrates on the nature of belief, investigating it as a natural phenomenon. He first considers whether we should investigate religion at all, whether we might not be better off leaving it steeped in mystery and, if we do decide to investigate it, whether the tools of empirical science are best suited to the task.

Having established some basic rules for investigation, he moves on to examine the possible roots of religion. Using the tools of evolution, he examines the possible adaptive advantages of religion and the human propensity for religion. For example, he suggests that our susceptibility to religious ideas may be a side effect of our inate respect for authority — that children who tend to obey an adult unquestioningly when they are told a crocodile is dangerous are more likely to survive than those who ignore the advice and attempt to find out for themselves.

Moving on to study religion today, Dennett attempts to determine what benefits, if any, it provides. He investigations questions of morality, concluding that uncritical acquiescence to a religious moral tradition is itself immoral. He also considers the assumption spiritual people are necessarily good, moral individuals who deserve unquestioning respect, whereas materialists — in the philosophical rather than quotidian sense — are necessarily bad people, before concluding that the view is groundless.

This then raises the question of where to go next, given that religions are a social reality. What should children be taught about religion? Dawkins argues that forcing children to follow the religion of their parents is a form of child abuse. Dennett is more restrained, suggesting instead that the best way forward might be to teach children about all religions without privileging one above another, allowing any future decisions to be made from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.

The book ends with a rallying cry, calling for more empirical research and for a more rational attitude towards religions:

It is time for us all to grow up. We must help one another, and be patient. It is overreaction that again and again has lost us ground. Give growing up some time, encourage it, and it will come about. We must have faith in our open society, in knowledge, in continuing pressure to make the world a better place for people to live, and we must recognize that people need to see their lives as having meaning. The thirst for a quest, a goal, a meaning, is unquenchable, and if we don't provide benign or at least nonmalignant avenues, we will always face toxic religions.

Why read Dennett if you've already read Dawkins? Because the two books are actually looking at different aspects of religion in very different ways. Dennett is more interested in belief and the origins of religion and adopts a philosophical approach to the problem, which in turn allows him to cover a lot of ground quite quickly. Dawkins, on th other hand, is more interested in demolishing the arguments for God — perfectly understandable given the way that his home field has been ruthlessly spammed by the proponents of Creationism/ID — and as a consequence, his arguments are scientific and heavy on empirical evidence. To use a theological simile, Dawkins is more of fire and brimstone preacher to Dennett's pensive theologian, with each complementing the other.