# Breaking the Spell (Dennett book)

Part of a series on :
Irreligion :
Irreligion
Antireligion
Anti-clericalism
Criticism of religion
Freethought
Organized secularism
Parody religion
Secular humanism
Secular liberalism
Secular state
Secularism
Secularity
Secularization
Separation of church and state :
Atheism
History
Demographics
Discrimination/Persecution
Criticism
Lists of atheists
Forms and variations
Implicit and explicit
Negative and positive
New
State
Aspects
Antitheism
Relationship between atheism and religion
Existence of God :
Agnosticism
Strong
Weak
Agnostic atheism
Apatheism
List of agnostics :
People
Atheists
Agnostics
Humanists :
Books
The Age of Reason
Breaking the Spell
The Demon-Haunted World
The End of Faith
The God Delusion
God Is Not Great
Letter to a Christian Nation
The System of Nature
Why I Am Not a Christian
Why I Am Not a Muslim
Why I Am an Atheist :
List of irreligious organizations
American Atheists
American Humanist Association
Atheist Alliance International
Center for Inquiry
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Humanists International
Humanists UK
Rational Response Squad
Recovering from Religion
Brazilian Association of Atheists and Agnostics :
Related topics
Countries by irreligion
Disestablishmentarianism
Secular ethics
Irreligion by country :
vte :
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is a 2006 book by American philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, in which the author argues that religion is in need of scientific analysis so that its nature and future may be better understood. The "spell" that requires "breaking" is not religious belief itself but the belief that it is off-limits to or beyond scientific inquiry.$^{:17}$

## Synopsis

The book is divided into three parts. Dennett's working definition of religions is: "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought". He notes that this definition is "a place to start, not something carved in stone".$^{:9}$
Part I discusses the motivation and justification for the entire project: Can science study religion? Should science study religion? Dennett addresses the proposal by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion represent non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA); science dealing with facts while religion deals with values, morality, and personal meanings. Noting that NOMA drew few adherents from either side, and that Gould's thesis is itself based upon a scientific view of the issues, Dennett concludes that religion must be open to scientific investigation.$^{:29–40}$
Part II proceeds to use the tools of evolutionary biology and memetics to suggest possible theories regarding the origin of religion and subsequent evolution of modern religions from ancient folk beliefs.
Part III analyzes religion and its effects in today's world: Does religion make us moral? Is religion what gives meaning to life? What should we teach the children? Dennett bases much of his analysis on empirical evidence, though he often points out that much more research in this field is needed.

## Critical reception
### Mass media

The Guardian's Andrew Brown describes it as giving "a very forceful and lucid account of the reasons why we need to study religious behaviour as a human phenomenon".
In Scientific American, George Johnson describes the book's main draw as being "a sharp synthesis of a library of evolutionary, anthropological and psychological research on the origin and spread of religion".

### Biological sciences

In The New Yorker, evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr described the book as "an accessible account of what might be called the natural history of religion".

### Religious community

Leon Wieseltier, former member of the editorial board of the Jewish Review of Books, called the book, in The New York Times, "a sorry instance of present-day scientism" which he labels a superstition.
Charles T. Rubin, professor emeritus of political science at Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit, likened Dennett to "a tone-deaf music scholar", criticized his "unwillingness to admit the limits of scientific rationality" and accused him of "deploying the same old Enlightenment tropes that didn't work all that well the first time around".

### Philosophical

Edward Feser and Karlyn Bowman criticize his interpretation of theistic arguments, whilst maintaining praise for his passages on cognitive neuroscience.
Roger Scruton both praised and criticised Dennett's book in his book On Human Nature, endorsing his intellectual bravery and imaginative writing, yet criticising his reliance on the meme theory, and remaining sceptical of his view that all areas of human consciousness can be accessible through the neo-Darwinian human model alone.
Philosopher and theologian David B. Hart finds Dennett to be dogmatic, a "Darwinian fundimentalist".

### Social sciences

Sociologist Penny Edgell (U. of Minnesota), who specializes in morals and religion, find the book frustrating in its combination of worthy scholarship and polemics.

### Other disciplines

In The New York Review of Books, Freeman Dyson wrote:
   After Dennett's harsh depiction of the moral evils associated with religion, his last chapter, "Now What Do We Do?," is bland and conciliatory. "So, in the end," he says, "my central policy recommendation is that we gently, firmly educate the people of the world, so that they can make truly informed choices about their lives." This recommendation sounds harmless enough. Why can we not all agree with it? Unfortunately, it conceals fundamental disagreements. To give the recommendation a concrete meaning, the meaning of the little word "we" must be specified. Who are the "we" who are to educate the people of the world? At stake is the political control of religious education, the most contentious of all the issues that religion poses to modern societies. "We" might be the parents of the children to be educated, or a local school board, or a national ministry of education, or a legally established ecclesiastical authority, or an international group of philosophers sharing Dennett's views. Of all these possibilities, the last is the least likely to be implemented. Dennett's recommendation leaves the practical problems of regulating religious education unsolved. Until we can agree about the meaning of "we," the recommendation to "gently, firmly educate the people of the world" will only cause further dissension between religious believers and well-meaning philosophers.

## Translations

Breaking the Spell has been translated into several other languages, including:
| Dutch | De betovering van het geloof: religie als een natuurlijk fenomeen | Hans Bosman | Amsterdam: Contact 2006 | ISBN 9025426875 |
| Finnish | Lumous murtuu: uskonto luonnonilmiönä | Kimmo Pietiläinen | Helsinki: Terra Cognita 2007 | ISBN 978-952-5202-96-0 |
| German | Den Bann brechen. Religion als natürliches Phänomen | Frank Born | Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag der Weltreligionen im Insel Verlag 2008 | ISBN 978-3-458-71011-0 |
| Greek | Απομυθοποίηση | Dimitris Xygalatas Nikolas Roubekas | Thessaloniki: Vanias 2007 | ISBN 978-960-288-198-9 |
| Indonesian | Breaking the Spell. Agama sebagai Fenomena Alam | Ninus D. Andarnuswari | Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia 2021 | ISBN 978-602-481-519-6 |
| Italian | Rompere l'incantesimo. La religione come fenomeno naturale | S. Levi | Milano: Cortina Raffaello 2007 | ISBN 978-88-6030-097-3 |
| Polish | Odczarowanie. Religia jako zjawisko naturalne | Barbara Stanosz | Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy 2008 | ISBN 978-83-06-03138-6 |
| Portuguese | Quebrando O Encanto. A Religião Como Fenômeno Natural | Helena Londres | Rio de Janeiro: Globo 2006 | ISBN 978-85-250-4288-0 |
| Serbian | Razbijanje čarolije: religija kao prirodna pojava | Milan Perić | Belgrade: McMillan 2015 | ISBN 978-86-80328-01-0 |
| Spanish | Romper el hechizo: la religión como un fenómeno natural | Felipe de Brigard | Madrid: Katz 2007 | ISBN 978-84-96859-00-5 |
| Persian | شکستن طلسم: دین به عنوان پدیده ای طبیعی | Amir Maniee | Published online, 2019 | |