Breaking the Spell

[rebeccmeister]

Well, 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.

Comments

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

I read the publisher's weekly review of it, and it sounds interesting enough to go see whether Tempe's library has a copy I can borrow. If the primary objective of the book is to encourage people to think critically about their faith, it's a commendable (if oft-repeated) one.

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.
One might well include science in this. In that sense, the self-reflection Dennett seems to be calling for is something best done in all aspects of human life, religious or nonreligious.

[rebeccmeister.livejournal.com]

Somehow violent scientific groups seem different to me, but your point is well made. There are certainly many non-religious violent groups as well (think of PETA, for example). The trouble is that when a violent group identifies itself as religious, it is thought of differently than non-religious violent groups. Dennett comments on this more extensively, so I hope you are able to find a copy of the book to read.

I like Dennett's methods of getting people to think about their faith--and yes, it's an oft-repeated objective. But some attempts are better than others, and I think this one stands out. I'll be quite interested to hear what you think about the book!

How to decide...

[(Anonymous)]

You wrote, "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," If this is your reason for not wanting to belong to a religious community, you might do well also to think about the track records of atheists. I think about 20th century communism, for example, an avowedly atheistic ideology. Lenin said, "Religion is the opiate of the people." The efforts of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to establish their atheistic utopias killed more people than all of the wars of the 20th century. Is the comparison of these atheist tyrants with religious extremists valid?

Re: How to decide...

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

This is something of a knee jerk response, but to lump all atheists in with the political/social ideologies of Stalin and Pol Pot makes about as much sense as lumping all Christians in with the Inquisition. This is not a zero-sum game for either side.

Re: How to decide...

[(Anonymous)]

Your "knee jerk response" is right on the mark... The fact that some adherents perform evil deeds does not seem to me to be a very good reason for choosing either to identify with or disidentify with any group.