Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Senate Republicans trying to kill NSA probe | Main | Happy birthday, Interstate Highway System »

March 08, 2006

Breaking the Spell: Review

Daniel Dennett's new book Breaking the Spell has been systematically misrepresented by its critics. Frankly, I think a lot of them are getting hung up on the title. Breaking the Spell is not an attempt to discredit religion by subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. The "spell" Dennett wants to break is the taboo against the scientific study of religion. There is widespread concern that understanding religion as a natural phenomenon will undermine religious faith. Dennett agrees that disenchantment is an empirical possibility, but Breaking the Spell doesn't appeal to naturalistic explanations to refute or discredit religion.

What if it became widely accepted that religions are the biological equivalent of masturbation--"hacks" that we have learned to perform on our own bodies to achieve feelings of transcendence on demand? Or, what if cognitive scientists convinced the public that world religions are informational parasites that have evolved to evade our epistemological "immune systems" and hijack us to disseminate them? It's possible that these ideas might put some people off religion, whether or not they constitute good reasons to abandon faith.

It's a widely-held article of meta-faith that religion is a force good in the world, irrespective of its truth or falsity. Dennett calls this stance "belief in belief." Believers in belief insist that religiosity has robust real-world benefits that are, at least in theory, observable by all. They claim that religiosity makes people happier, better behaved, and so on. If religion is so good and science might tarnish religion, then maybe it's irresponsible to probe too deeply. Even atheists might be prefer to leave well enough alone. Who are we to put our curiosity above the well-being of other people, even if we suspect that they are self-deluded? Some people worry that without religion there is no basis for morality. Some more cynical observers are concerned that the average person will see no reason to be moral without religion, even if there are sound non-religious arguments for ethical behavior.

Dennett argues that these worries are premature. The platitudes about the positive dividends of religion are themselves untested. In fact, we don't know whether religion makes people happier, healthier, more trustworthy, or anything else. There has been some epidemiological research on the effects of church membership on health, for example, but not nearly enough to draw firm conclusions one way or the other. Besides which, there are endless counterexamples that highlight the harms and dangers of religion. Religion inspires compassion in some and terrorism in others. The fact is, we don't know the ratio of medical missionaries to suicide bombers. What's the ratio of great works of art created to libraries burned in the name of religion? How many people feel that they are entitled to sin because they are going to be forgiven? How many people are tortured by fear of hellfire vs. consoled by the promise of salvation?

So, those who think we should be deferential to religion for the greater good find themselves in an awkward position: Their deference presupposes untested assumptions about the beneficial effects of religion. In order to find out whether religion is actually a force for good, we have to study it.

Dennett also takes on social scientists and scholars in the humanities who endorse secular religious studies but deny that science could ever explain anything about religion. Science could potentially contribute a great deal to our understanding of the origins and development of religion. For example, a great deal of work has already been done on the psychology and physiology of transcendent experience. We already know quite a lot about how religious rituals can induce altered states of consciousness. Psychologists and anthropologists have a long tradition of cooperation in these inquiries. If we want to understand what's really going on when people speak in tongues, for example, we need to know a lot about the social and biological context of the phenomenon. Dennett discusses the example of fire walking--which anthropologists might be tempted to interpret as a triumph of sheer will or self-hypnonsis, but which physicists know to be a mundane exploitation of the principles of heat conduction.

Everyone agrees that most religions can be studied as natural phenomena. Since 9/11 there has been an upsurge of interest in Islam. We are curious about the intersection of religion, culture, history, and politics that gives rise to radical Islamic terrorism. It's not good enough to say that (some Wahabists believe) that Allah commands them to commit acts of terrorism. We want real explanations.

Likewise, most people are comfortable treating the rites of the ancient Egyptians or the mythology of Native American tribes as natural phenomena--i.e., as beliefs and practices that can be studied empirically by anyone, not just by those who have a prior commitment to the metaphysics of these creeds.

However, for some reason, many religious people get extremely defensive when their own beliefs are subjected to scientific scrutiny. This resistance is built into the dogmas of many religions. It's no surprise that religions that endure over time have incorporated doctrinal provisions to preempt certain forms of questioning. Many religions teach that it is a sin or a character flaw to doubt key articles of faith. This general attitude is widespread even among people who aren't personally religious but who nevertheless believe in belief. As Dennett observes, it's not difficult to see how these anti-questioning rules help perpetuate religions.

In the New York Times Book Review Leon Wieseltier accuses Dennett of missing the point. The point, in Wiesletier's estimation, is whether the arguments for religion are any good. Even if we are biologically predisposed to believe in gods, that doesn't mean that there aren't also good reasons to be religious. Agreed. However, Wieseltier is attacking a straw man when he accuses Dennett of trying to debunk religion with science.

In fact, Dennett is very careful to distinguish between reasons and mere causes. If you want Denettian debunking, read Darwin's Dangerous Idea in which Dennett argues that natural selection has rendered the argument from design obsolete.

Wieseltier and other critics complain that Dennett refuses to engage seriously with religion.

In fact, Breaking the Spell does touch on theology. As Dennett points out, the the standard arguments for the existence of god aren't even close to arguments for religion, let alone for any particular religion. If they work at all, they establish the existence of a creator. However, nothing much follows from this result. Even if there is a creator, it doesn't follow that we ought to worship it, or expect it to care about us. The fact is that religious partisans don't have good transcendental arguments for the details that define their creeds. If you're not hung up on the details, you can be a deist and happily embrace naturalistic explanations for religion and everything else. It's only when you want intellectual credibility for special pleading that naturalistic explanations begin to seem threatening.

If Dennett's religious critics were serious about engagement, they'd stop attacking straw men and get to the substance of the dispute. We all agree ex ante that naturalistic explanations for religion don't disprove the existence of God or negate whatever good arguments there may be for believing. As far as I know, none of Dennett's high profile critics see a conflict between their faith and modern science. In fact, many rightfully get uptight when they think they're being lumped in with superstitious rubes who think the earth was literally created in seven days.

Once you get beyond the platitudes about compatibilism, naturalistic explanations for religion tend to make the faithful uncomfortable. Why? Because believers insist that they worship as they do because they have some kind of access to the divine. The main problem is that there are a lot of incompatible religions out there. If religious partisans want to engage Dennett, they need to start talking specifics:"Why I have good reason to believe that God talks to me, but not to all those other people who insist that God tells them the exact opposite of what He tells me..." The fact is that religious partisans don't have compelling reasons to believe that God talks to them and no one else. That's where faith comes in. Invoking faith is an admission that you've run out of reasons that would convince someone who doesn't already agree with you. For all we know, there might be a true religious faith, but that doesn't mean that the people who embrace it do so for good reasons.

Breaking the Spell is an accessible introduction to the latest scientific research on religion. However, it's important recognize that the primary focus of the book is not to advance a specific empirical theory, but rather to defend the the scientific study of religion against those who would discount these inquiries out of hand.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d83426c4d253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breaking the Spell: Review:

» Lindsey Beyerstein on Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" from
"Believers in belief insist that religiosity has robust real-world benefits that are, at least in theory, observable by all. They claim that religiosity makes people happier, better behaved, and so on. If religion is so good and science might tarnish r... [Read More]

» Lindsay Beyerstein reviews Dennett's Breaking the Spell from 3quarksdaily
From Majikthise:Daniel Dennett's new book Breaking the Spell has been systematically misrepresented by its critics. Frankly, I think a lot of them are getting hung up on the title. Breaking the Spell is not an attempt to discredit religion by [Read More]

» Testing belief from Lance Mannion
At Majikthise, Lindsay Beyerstein comes to the defense of Daniel Dennett's new book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Lindsay says that Dennett's book is being misrepresented by critics who are afraid of what they think he's up to,... [Read More]

» More on Dennett's Book from If-Then Knots ---------------------->
Here is Dennett's response to Weisltier. Here is an account of the dust-up between Michael Ruse and Dennett, which is linked on Dembski's blog. The ID-creationists are gloating over there about the fact that two Darwinists are having a disagreement. [Read More]

Comments

I'll be chasing this book down. Does it carefully engage both with the propitiating and the transcendent aspects of religion (individual and group mysticism?). I see too many critiques focusing on the first, and ignoring the latter. Phenomenologically, William James covered some of this ground in 'The Varieties of Religious Experience', which had some nice work on the authenticity of religious joy produced by nitrous oxide. I think that Dennett's notion is pretty conservative; after all, this work is done every time you look at someone else's beliefs or society and try to figure out how their wrong beliefs can serve them, or how our ancestors managed to cope before their descendents were enlightened.

Lindsay,
You may be interested to know that we have been discussing Dennett's book, your defense of him and his critics over at Prosblogion. See here

You are welcome to mix it up with us.

Parthenogenesis does exist among a very few vertebrates (e.g. some whiptail lizards) but not among mammals.

And among characters in Shriekback songs.

(OK, highly obscure reference, but Nemesis was such a cool song)

look at someone else's beliefs or society and try to figure out how their wrong beliefs can serve them,

I think that Tears for Fears wrote their very finest album, The Seeds of Love, on the subject of Primal Scream therapy. The idea behind this therapy, I believe, is that the trauma of one's own birth colours one's whole life, and may be purged or resolved by reenacting the birth scream. Roland Orzabal and Curt Smith, the songwriters, followed this therapeutic system. I am highly skeptical of the ideas behind this therapy, but it provided us with a highly thoughtful album full of great songs, my favorite album by them. If that's a wrong belief, I have to respect the artistic outcome of it.

If that's a wrong belief, I have to respect the artistic outcome of it.

Put more prettily: Though that may be a false belief, I have to respect the etc.

The platitudes about the positive dividends of religion are themselves untested. In fact, we don't know whether religion makes people happier, healthier,...

Really? I am mostly on board with Dennett in his course toward a secular and scientific understanding of relgion but this statement, whether it is Dennett's or the reviewers, ignores significant work by Benson and others on physiological benefits of prayer and meditation for some practices. These findings are nearly 30 years old and I could find only a few objections to Benson's general conclusions coming from doctrinaire christians who find anything their annoited leaders did not explicitly condone to be a threat.

If propositions (or groups of propositions) are to be compared as genes (or groups of genes) that can be selected for, etc., then their truth-values become irrelevant, right? Isn't it the case that the fitness of a proposition has nothing to do with it's truth-value (e.g., presumably Dennett thinks some religious propositions are extremely fit and patently false)?

What about the propositions of science? They are believed based on their fitness. Doesn't this put Dennett uncomfortably close to thinkers like Rorty or Foucault? Aren't usefulness and power criteria of fitness? And therefore, isn't science in danger of becoming another story? A useful story, to be sure, but a story nonetheless.

Informative Review. I am in the middle of the book and taking my time since I want to think about each chapter. The book takes on a different meaning with current events, the burning of mosques and the trial for conversion to Christianity with a penalty of death.

My blog alrodbell.blogspot.com looks at the New York Times attack review as a representitive expression of the outrage of most of the world when their belief is challenged. The essay before that one is about my elderly Jewish Aunt, for whom religion provides succor as she nears the end of her life.

If Dennett's book falls short, it is in not understanding my Aunt Lena

The fact is that religious partisans don't have good transcendental arguments for the details that define their creeds.

I don't understand this. What sort of transcendental argument are they supposed to make?

United Press International just published my critique of Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Science. My article is titled "Towards an Organic God" and rebuts Dennett's true thesis by summarizing the reasons people have for believing in religion: 1) The existence of God can be proven. 2) Miracles are part of our salvation history. 3) Life without religion has no meaning. 4) People who don't believe give very bad reasons for not believing. The article is on their website under Spirituality and Religion: Topics: Movies, Books, Music and Art. The link is

http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.com/view.php?StoryID=20060922-085307-7779r

While most people do think that religion can be studied as a natural phenomena, they sometimes treat it as "intelligent design". Most scientists regard intelligent design as another form of creationism, not quite supported by the scientific method. We cannot come to a consensus about the nature of belief, or faith, until we first start treating it as something natural.weeed to disuse words like "sin" "faith" "holy" while we are in the process of finding whether religion should be kept in society. Until then, it is important to promote discussion and criticism, in order to open the barrier and eliminate the taboos of religion.

The comments to this entry are closed.