Breaking the Spell.
Reviews of philosopher Daniel C. Dennett's recent book 'Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' have promised a revolution with regard to the scientific community's relationship with and examination of the effects of religion on American society. I'll give you my personal take on this claim in a moment, but first a disclaimer: If you are expecting a completely scientific treatment of the subject of religion, you will not find it here. Dennett admits his own bias toward Evolution at the outset, and his bias toward Atheism is quite apparent throughout the text. ( As a friend pointed out, Dennett also clearly associates the two concepts, and has a rather poor definition of Agnosticism as well. )
That said, the book itself does contain a clearly written and well reasoned argument for the scientific examination of the institution of religion, both organized and informal, and its effects upon our society. Dennett makes a case for a picture of religion influenced throughout the ages by evolutionary processes which he claims created the shape of what we call modern religion, whether by force of nature or, in later times, by the guiding hand of man. The author indirectly makes the point that while we routinely refer to the "evolution" of, for instance, architecture or ship design, many take great offense at the use of this term when it is applied to religion.
Sadly, Dennett's self-proclaimed and very obvious bias serves at times to weaken his case for why such a close examination of religion is needed. On the whole, however, it is a good case and will, I hope, be accepted at least by those religious adherents within the scientific community, if not by established religion. One must also bear in mind that this book is written, not from a purely religious or a scientific perspective, but rather from the view of a philosopher. The book's goal, as stated in the introduction, is to ask questions rather than to provide answers, and that is what it serves to do, very effectively.
Despite its obvious flaws, 'Breaking the Spell' is an eminently enjoyable read, punctuated by insightful humor and thought provoking points. I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject of religion, or social phenomena.
That said, the book itself does contain a clearly written and well reasoned argument for the scientific examination of the institution of religion, both organized and informal, and its effects upon our society. Dennett makes a case for a picture of religion influenced throughout the ages by evolutionary processes which he claims created the shape of what we call modern religion, whether by force of nature or, in later times, by the guiding hand of man. The author indirectly makes the point that while we routinely refer to the "evolution" of, for instance, architecture or ship design, many take great offense at the use of this term when it is applied to religion.
Sadly, Dennett's self-proclaimed and very obvious bias serves at times to weaken his case for why such a close examination of religion is needed. On the whole, however, it is a good case and will, I hope, be accepted at least by those religious adherents within the scientific community, if not by established religion. One must also bear in mind that this book is written, not from a purely religious or a scientific perspective, but rather from the view of a philosopher. The book's goal, as stated in the introduction, is to ask questions rather than to provide answers, and that is what it serves to do, very effectively.
Despite its obvious flaws, 'Breaking the Spell' is an eminently enjoyable read, punctuated by insightful humor and thought provoking points. I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject of religion, or social phenomena.
posted by Q. at 11:03:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home