Ryan and Debi Cragun’s Blog

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

Author:
Daniel C. Dennett

Publisher:
Viking Adult

Date of Publication:
2006

ISBN:
067003472X

Rating:
9

Summary:
Daniel Dennett’s book, Breaking the Spell, really has two major goals. The first is related to the title of the book and involves “breaking the spell” around the sanctity of religion in order to open it up to scientific scrutiny, “It is high time that we subject religion as a global phenomenon to the most intensive multidisciplinary research we can muster, calling on the best minds on the planet. Why? Because religion is too important for us to remain ignorant about. It affects not just our social, political, and economic conflicts, but the very meanings we find in our lives. For many people, probably a majority of the people on Earth, nothing matters more than religion. For this very reason, it is imperative that we learn as much as we can about it. That, in a nutshell, is the argument of this book” (p. 14). Roughly the first half of the book is dedicated to this aim, developing arguments as to why studying religion from a scientific perspective is not only a good thing but something that must be done.

The second goal of the book is to develop a theory of religion. When Dennett talks about a theory of religion he is referring to more than just why people are religious or not. He is interested in the “grand” question concerning religion: Where did it come from? And the sister question: Why is it still around? Dennett approaches religion from a sociobiological perspective and argues that religion is a meme that has succeeded for various reasons. (Note: A meme is the ideological equivalent of a gene – i.e., an idea that uses similar processes as those of genes to spread.) While Dennett gives several possible explanations for why the religion meme may have succeeded, ultimately he proposes the following theory as to why religion came about and why it is still around, “Memes that foster human group solidarity are particularly fit (as memes) in circumstances in which host survival (and hence host fitness) most directly depends on hosts joining forces in groups. The success of such meme-infested groups is itself a potent broadcasting device, enhancing outgroup curiosity (and envy) and thus permitting linguistic, ethnic, and geographic boundaries to be more readily penetrated… [T]his hypothesis can in principle account for the excellence of design encountered in religion without postulating rational designers… And it can account for the fact that individual fitness is apparently subordinated to group fitness in religions. According to this theory, we don’t need to postulate group-replication tournaments but only a cultural environment in which ideas compete. Ideas that encourage people to act together in groups… will spread more effectively as a result of this groupishness than ideas that do a less effective job of uniting their hosts into armies” (pp. 184-185). In summary, the religion meme has succeeded because it bring humans, who are social animals, together in ways that are mutually beneficial. As a result, societies that have unifying religions tend to do better, resulting in the success of the meme. This is, in a nutshell, Dennett’s explanation for the continued existence of the religion meme.

Along the way, Dennet makes several additional points that, while somewhat tangential to the main arguments, are also worth noting. For instance, Dennett argues that individuals who are unwilling to question their faith are actually immoral and a hindrance to humanity, “[T]hose who have an unquestioning faith in the correctness of the moral teachings of their religion are a problem: if they themselves haven’t conscientiously considered, on their own, whether their pastors or priests or rabbis or imams are worthy of this delegated authority over their own lives, then they are in fact taking a personally immoral stand. This is perhaps the most shocking implication of my inquiry, and I do not shrink from it, even though it may offend many who think of themselves as deeply moral. It is commonly supposed that it is entirely exemplary to adopt the moral teachings of one’s own religion without question, because—to put it simply—it is the word of God (as interpreted, always, by the specialists to whom one has delegated authority). I am urging, on the contrary, that anybody who professes that a particular point of moral conviction is not discussable, not debatable, not negotiable, simply because it is the word of God, or because the Bible says so… should be seen to be making it impossible for the rest of us to take their views seriously, excusing themselves from the moral conversation, inadvertently acknowledging that their own views are not conscientiously maintained and deserve no further hearing… Even if you are right… you cannot reasonably expect others who do not share your faith or experience to accept this as a reason. You are being unreasonable in taking your stand. The fact that your faith is so strong that you cannot do otherwise just shows… that you are disabled for moral persuasion, a sort of robotic slave to a meme that you are unable to evaluate. And if you reply that you can but you won’t consider reasons for and against your conviction… you avow your willful refusal to abide by the minimal conditions of rational discussion. Either way, your declarations of your deeply held views are posturings that are out of place, part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we others will just have to work around you as best we can” (p. 295). (Sorry for the lengthy quote. Normally I summarize lengthy points like this, but I think Dennett said it better than I could.)

In summary, then, Breaking the Spell is trying to pave the way for an open discussion and examination of religion by removing the taboos and pointing out the importance of such a venture. It also presents a sociobiological theory of the origins and development of religion and argues that anyone unwilling to discuss religion, for whatever reason, is taking an immoral and irrational stand and is more of a hindrance to society than a help.

Review:
There is so much to like about this book. First off, I think Dennett’s logical arguments for the why religion should be studied are sound. Additionally, many of his tangential points are incredibly insightful. Even so, the book isn’t without its problems. With the exception of one serious one, most of the problems are relatively minor.

First, a couple of stylistic issues. The author has a penchant for trailing off on tangents. Fortunately, most of the tangents are very interesting, but it can get a little troublesome to wade through these. However, off-setting this criticism is one of the most wonderful features of a book like this I’ve ever seen – at the end of every chapter the author provides a one paragraph summary of the chapter you just read and a one paragraph summary of the next chapter. Brilliant! I’m guessing I’m not the only person who occasionally lets his/her mind wander while reading; to have a quick recap at the end of a chapter to reinforce the ideas of that chapter is a great idea. I wish more books did this!

I should also note that, while not a selling point, the book does have a fair amount of humor in it. Here’s a great one-liner I got a kick out of, “The great evolutionary biologist Francois Jacob once quipped that the dream of every cell is to become two cells” (p. 64); I’m not a biologist, but I still thought it was hilarious! Don’t buy this book for the humor, but consider it one more reason why you should consider picking this book up.

In kind of a weird set-up for a counter argument, Dennett talks about the advances in epidemiology and public health that are shedding light on the contributions of religion, “A current surge of interest is bringing to bear all the statistical tools of epidemiology and public health on such questions as whether regular churchgoers live longer, are less likely to have heart attacks, and so forth, and in most of the surveys the results are positive, often strongly so. (For an extensive overview, now rapidly becoming out of date, see Koenig et al., 2000.)” (p. 272). Dennett proceeds to explain that much of this research has, under closer scrutiny, been shown not to be problematic and that religion is less of a boon than some have claimed. Even so, relying on someone like Harold Koenig for information on religion and health is not a good idea: Koenig is a biased scholar who begins his research with a specific agenda in mind – to find evidence that bolsters his idea that religion is good for peoples’ health. Koenig has likely done some good work, but everything I’ve read of his (which, admittedly, is not much) has been pretty flawed. So, for Dennett to recommend Koenig for a summary of the research in this area is unfortunate – there are better sources (e.g., Richard Sloan’s work).

Another minor issue I had with the book was Dennett’s characterization of social science, “This brings into the open a major difference between goals and methods in the social sciences and the hard sciences: social sciences are not just about people (so is the molecular biology of HIV and the chemistry of human nutrition) but about how people should live” (p. 374). While this may be true of areas like policy research or clinical psychology, it is not true of all the social sciences. Demography, for instance, is just the study of human populations. It does not necessarily include prescriptions for how human populations should be, though demographers often have such opinions. The social sciences don’t have to be subjective, and I would argue that much of the work done in the social sciences is not. I’m not sure why Dennett made this claim, but I don’t agree with it.

Continuing with the social sciences for a second, I do think Dennett does level a valid criticism at them, the sociology of religion in particular, and I agree with his point, “The ardent anti-Darwinians in the humanities and social sciences have traditionally feared that an evolutionary approach would drown their cherished way of thinking—with its heroic authors and artists and inventors and other defenders and lovers of ideas. And so they have tended to declare, with desperate conviction but no evidence or argument, that human culture and human society can only be interpreted and never causally explained, using methods and presuppositions that are completely incommensurable with, or untranslatable into, the methods and presuppositions of the natural sciences. “You can’t get here from there!” could be their motto. “The chasm is unbridgeable!” And yet we have just completed a sketchy but nonmiraculous and matter-of-fact stroll, all the way from blind, mechanical, robotic nature to the passionate defense and elaboration of the most exalted ideas known to humankind. The chasm was a figment of fearful imagination. We can do a better job of understanding ourselves as champions of ideas, and defenders of values, if we first see how we came to occupy such a special role” (pp. 187-188). Dennett is referring, here, to his theoretical analysis of the origins of religion. While my next criticism deals with this theory, I do think Dennett is right to criticize the social sciences on this front – they are often unwilling to recognize the insights of sociobiology and the natural sciences, which often leaves the social sciences looking more like a marketplace of opinions than real science…

So, what is my big criticism of the theory presented by Dennett? Unfortunately it’s the same criticism that can be leveled toward many sociobiological theories – it isn’t plausibly falsifiable. Dennett uses post hoc reasoning to present an engaging narrative as to how religion may have developed, but he has little to no evidence to support his theory. Religion may have developed that way (and likely did), but we have no real way of knowing if that was the case, short of planting life on a planet and watching it over billions of years as it evolves to see if it, too, develops some form of religion. If it follows Dennett’s theory, then he could be vindicated… But a few billion years is kind of a long time to wait. So, while the theory – that religion is a successful meme that encourages in-group solidarity and results in its replication and spreading – is compelling, it’s not really falsifiable, as Dennett claims, at least not practically falsifiable. It’s better than anything else out there (in part because there isn’t really anything else out there except the divine intervention claims of the religions themselves), but there isn’t a whole lot of utility in replacing one non-falsifiable idea with another one… Neither are scientific. So, unless Dennett can give clear, testable hypotheses to go along with his theory, unfortunately we are left still wondering if it is accurate without a means of determining if it is.

The above criticisms aside, the book makes a number of great points. Rather than summarize them, I’ll just let you read a few of them in the author’s words [my comments in brackets]:

p. 60 “But how, in the face of so much striking confirmation and massive scientific evidence, could so many Americans disbelieve in evolution? It is simple: they have been solemnly told that the theory of evolution is false (or at least unproven) by people they trust more than they trust scientists.”
[so sad...]

p. 85 “If (some) religions are culturally evolved parasites, we can expect them to be insidiously well designed to conceal their true nature from their hosts, since this is an adaptation that would further their own spread.”

p. 132 “But what good to us is the gods’ knowledge if we can’t get it from them? How could one communicate with the gods? Our ancestors (while they were alive!) stumbled on an extremely ingenious solution: divination. We all know how hard it is to make the major decisions of life: should I hang tough or admit my transgression, should I move or stay in my present position, should I go to war or not, should I follow my heart or my head? We still haven’t figured out any satisfactory systematic way of deciding these things. Anything that can relieve the burden of figuring out how to make these hard calls is bound to be an attractive idea. Consider flipping a coin, for instance. Why do we do it? To take away the burden of having to find a reason for choosing A over B. We like to have reasons for what we do, but sometimes nothing sufficiently persuasive comes to mind, and we recognize that we have to decide soon, so we concoct a little gadget, an external thing that will make the decision for us.”
[i.e., prayer = evolved divination]

p. 196 “In other words, expect religious “firms” to exploit and exacerbate social conflict whenever possible, since it is a way of generating business.”

p. 207 “If I were designing a phony religion, I’d surely include a version of this little gem—but I’d have a hard time saying it with a straight face: “If anybody ever raises questions or objections about our religion that you cannot answer, that person is almost certainly Satan. In fact, the more reasonable the person is, the more eager to engage you in open-minded and congenial discussion, the more sure you can be that you’re talking to Satan in disguise! Turn away! Do not listen! It’s a trap!” What is particularly cute about this trick is that it is a perfect “wild card,” so lacking in content that any sect or creed or conspiracy can use it effectively.”

Overall, I think this book does make valuable contributions to the scientific study of religion. Dennett’s arguments detailing why religion should be studied are compelling and logically sound. I’m disappointed that he has not presented a formal theory of the development of religion, but given the problem, his solution is not only not surprising but, at present, about the best we can do. In the process of developing his arguments, Dennett makes a bunch of great points concerning religion that belie his particular perspective – he’s a bright, meaning he is not personally religious and does not believe in god/s/esses. Despite being personally non-religious, Dennett does a decent job of presenting the evidence a religious person might bring to this argument. After all, as Dennett points out, it may be the case that studying religion scientifically will ultimately vindicate the claims of religion – that it is beneficial. Dennett allows for that possibility, but I think he is skeptical that that is what we’ll find. Even so, unless we ask the questions, we’ll never know – and finding out will benefit everyone, brights and religious people alike. In the future, when someone asks my why I study religion, I’ll refer them to this book…

… without a little social commentary? As my previous post mentioned, I spent last week in Columbus filming the butter sculpture for the American Dairy Association. While on the fairgrounds I was privy to some of the things taking place there. There were horse shows going on the entire week. Having less than no interest in horses, I wasn’t too keen to go watch the shows. But that didn’t prevent me from catching a little of the action.

While shooting some grounding shots outside the Dairy Barn I happened to notice a woman whipping her horse. While I’m not particularly fond of pets, the reason isn’t because I think animals (other than humans) should be abused… It’s actually just the opposite - animals (other than humans) should be allowed to live in their natural environment - unless, of course, you want to eat them, in which case their natural environment tends to be a ranch or farm, but that’s a different issue. In short, I’m not a fan of animal abuse.

So, as I looked closer at the woman whipping her horse I realized why she was doing it - she wasn’t just whipping the horse, she was whipping the horse’s penis! She was just about to show the horse and, apparently, if it has a monstrous erection that won’t win her a ribbon (more on ribbons below). Well… Since I already had my video camera out, I decided I’d capture the abuse… and put it online. So I did. Want to see a small pony gets its dong whacked? Click here.

Speaking of horses and ribbons… The last day I was filming (Friday), we decided to pick up lunch at the vendors that were opening up a bit early before the State Fair actually opens (which is next week). I was wary that I’d be able to find anything, but I did (it was pretty awful and way too expensive, but that’s not the point of this story). With a few minutes to kill while we were eating, we decided to head into the horse showing arena and watch the people show their horses.

We took our seats with our food and drinks - we could have taken almost any seat, as the place was virtually deserted - and watched the “action.” Several events took place while we were watching. The first was a bunch of women riding horses at different gaits and such. The rest were primarily horses pulling various contraptions - buggies and other wheeled thing-a-majigs (I’m sure that’s the technical term for them). Mind you when I say “horse show” I mean “horse showing competition.” Apparently people come to these things to win ribbons. And, lest anyone go away feeling sad, they gave almost every single horse and rider I saw a ribbon. They had ribbons for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place, of course, but also for 4th, 5th, 6th, etc… You get the point.

As I was sitting there watching all of this unfold, I started asking myself: What’s the point? I mean, honestly, couldn’t these people find better things to do with their time than train horses to do things they don’t naturally do? The incident that really kind of pushed me from curiousity to indignance was when a small pony, not even four feet tall from its front hoofs to the top of its head, strode into the ring pulling some old geezer behind it. The pony’s front legs looked like hooks as it pranced around the ring - they came up so high and so awkwardly that I thought the damn thing looked like a mutant. Other than its deformed legs, it was a cute horse… but those legs! It was easily the most cruel thing I saw to permanently deform the way a fine animal runs such that it looks like it could fall over at any time. The animal’s movement looked disjointed and foreign to it. It was not natural.

Yes, I embrace technology and I love lots of things that are not natural. But disforming a horse so it conforms to some asshole’s standards of pretty kind of pushes my buttons. The worst part about it: There was only one person in that competition - the guy won the stupid ribbon by default. That poor horse pranced around the ring like a flamingo doing the hokey pokey for 5 minutes just so the guy riding behind it could walk out with a ribbon.

After hanging out with the same guys for a week, I didn’t feel like I had to check my thoughts so I blurted out what I was thinking - that’s just not right! They had various comments on my thoughts, some good, some bad. One guy pointed out that the way they train the horses to look like that is by tying weights to their legs so they have to lift them extra high. I think they should do the same to the owner - the asshole! Maybe he’d think twice about screwing up his horse if he walked around like a clown all day, bending his knees in odd ways…

One other comment someone made seems worth mentioning. I kept reiterating how I thought the whole thing was a massive waste of time and resources. One guy mentioned that if they were not showing (i.e., abusing) animals, they’d probably be sitting at home watching TV. Well, maybe that’s true. But which is worse: wasting your life watching TV or ruining an animal’s life? I’m not sure…

It’s safe to say I won’t be going to a horse show again any time soon…

I was out of town most of last week filming a project. Over the last three years or so I maintained a simple website offering to transfer VHS tapes to DVD for people (I’ve since taken the site down). Through that site I met a sculptor, Bob, who leads a team of toy sculptors to Columbus every summer to spend a week sculpting butter. With my interest in video editing and such, he asked me a few months ago if I was interested in filming the sculpting process (for pay, of course). I didn’t really realize the time commitment involved at the time (and I have a hard time turning people down), so I said yes.

We headed up to Columbus on the 17th and spent the next four days there as well, returning in the afternoon on Friday, the 21st. I now have 7+ hours of footage to sift through to create a few videos for the American Dairy Association and Dairy Council Mid East to use for promoting the butter sculptures. I can’t reveal what they sculpted at this point. But if you’re interested, stay tuned to your local news channel as they are likely to carry some of the footage I shot and edited if/when they cover the Ohio State Fair.

I realize this has nothing to do with sociology, my dissertation, getting a job, or teaching at Raymond Walters next year - all things I should be working on… Oh well; I’ll get back to those tasks in a couple of days, after I finish editing the footage…

In the latest edition of Contexts, a sociology magazine that presents sociological research for a wider audience, I found the following photo taken in New Orleans just after Hurricane Katrina hit:

If you click on the image you’ll see it full-sized. I couldn’t really tell what I was seeing at first, but the caption quickly made it clear:

Disaster research usually finds that people bind together to form an “altruistic community,” putting aside their differences to foster mutu­al recovery. The New Orleans story was more complex. While there was a good deal of altruism and what disaster researchers call pro-social behavior, there was also divisiveness. These cars were stacked between the Lower Ninth Ward, which was 67 percent African American, and St. Bernard Parish, which was 90 percent white. We do not know who built the barrier, but we do know it was people in St. Bernard. Both areas were devastated by the flood. Altruistic commu­nities are real enough, but deep-seated animosities, such as racial ten­sions, were not washed away by the floodwaters.

Racism is not a thing of the past in the U.S., not even after a natural disaster when you’d hope people would work together.

We found out last Friday that Brent and Suzy, Debi’s sister and brother-in-law, are having a baby boy.  His name is going to be Ethan Brent Robbins.  They had the ultrasound on Friday and found out the sex.  I guess they already had the name picked out.  One of Debi’s brothers told her the name was going to be Dallin the night before… Not sure where the slip up was, but I thought the miscommunication was funny.  Anyway, congrats to Brent and Suzy!