![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Breaking the Spell
Dec. 29th, 2006 08:54 amWell, I have finished reading Daniel Dennett's latest book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. He uses a rationalist approach to show putative origins of religious (superstitious?) thinking/behavior and the subsequent development of organized religion. This is a quick-and-dirty summary of major points of the book that have helped me contextualize some ideas I have thought through idly but never systematically. Altogether, I'm grateful that the book has helped me clarify and articulate my "beliefs." (the book has some pretty interesting commentary on how beliefs end up muddling religious arguments)
In addition to describing the origins of religion, Dennett explores the development of the concept of God, first using rough distinctions between God as being and God as essence, as described by [argh can't remember his name and am not near the book]. The God as being definition emphasizes God as an omniscient, omnipotent force capable of action/intervention in an individual's life. He shows that the concept of God as being is, well, hard to believe when one considers it more closely--it basically doesn't make sense because such a thing turns into an all-or-none phenomenon (if God's omniscient, God must be listening to everything, everywhere, all at once (human or otherwise), and really, there's no good direct evidence for any God-like being actually having done anything--in any case, major religious figures consider this perspective to be a fairly primitive understanding of God). Dennett then argues that the God as essence concept can be dismissed through a logical argument, which I'll attempt to summarize. Essentially, if God-as-essence is the greatest thing there is, the only possible thing that could be greater is God-as-essence existing as an actual thing. (this borders on the tautological and is pretty damn tricky to argue about, as best I understand at the moment). For me, the God-as-essence arguments go back to my personal everything-is-sacred/nothing-is-sacred understanding of the universe. Dennett argues that this perspective is equivalent to atheism, because major religious institutions tend to get bogged down on the details about God and make the term less meaningful than simply referring directly to the material world as sacred. So I suppose I prefer the term "athiest" because it seems more parsimonious.
As a side disclaimer, it's important to note that perhaps as many atheists as theists or agnostics carefully consider their personal philosophy, and thus it's wrong to characterize any of these three groups as unthinking, uncaring individuals. Respect for the traditions/histories behind religions is cruicial, but should not overshadow the fact that pretty much all major religious establishments also inadvertantly shelter extremist sects associated with them. That's one of my major reasons for wanting to no longer be identified with them, although of course I expect to continue to respect, talk to, and work with people will all manners of belief systems as my personal proclivities permit.
In addition to describing the origins of religion, Dennett explores the development of the concept of God, first using rough distinctions between God as being and God as essence, as described by [argh can't remember his name and am not near the book]. The God as being definition emphasizes God as an omniscient, omnipotent force capable of action/intervention in an individual's life. He shows that the concept of God as being is, well, hard to believe when one considers it more closely--it basically doesn't make sense because such a thing turns into an all-or-none phenomenon (if God's omniscient, God must be listening to everything, everywhere, all at once (human or otherwise), and really, there's no good direct evidence for any God-like being actually having done anything--in any case, major religious figures consider this perspective to be a fairly primitive understanding of God). Dennett then argues that the God as essence concept can be dismissed through a logical argument, which I'll attempt to summarize. Essentially, if God-as-essence is the greatest thing there is, the only possible thing that could be greater is God-as-essence existing as an actual thing. (this borders on the tautological and is pretty damn tricky to argue about, as best I understand at the moment). For me, the God-as-essence arguments go back to my personal everything-is-sacred/nothing-is-sacred understanding of the universe. Dennett argues that this perspective is equivalent to atheism, because major religious institutions tend to get bogged down on the details about God and make the term less meaningful than simply referring directly to the material world as sacred. So I suppose I prefer the term "athiest" because it seems more parsimonious.
As a side disclaimer, it's important to note that perhaps as many atheists as theists or agnostics carefully consider their personal philosophy, and thus it's wrong to characterize any of these three groups as unthinking, uncaring individuals. Respect for the traditions/histories behind religions is cruicial, but should not overshadow the fact that pretty much all major religious establishments also inadvertantly shelter extremist sects associated with them. That's one of my major reasons for wanting to no longer be identified with them, although of course I expect to continue to respect, talk to, and work with people will all manners of belief systems as my personal proclivities permit.
