08.05.09
Archive: ‘breaking the spell’
archive:
March 19, 2006
3quarks reviews Dennett’s Breaking the Spell.
Daniel Dennett’s new book Breaking the Spell has been systematically misrepresented by its critics. Frankly, I think a lot of them are getting hung up on the title. Breaking the Spell is not an attempt to discredit religion by subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. The “spell” Dennett wants to break is the taboo against the scientific study of religion. There is widespread concern that understanding religion as a natural phenomenon will undermine religious faith. Dennett agrees that disenchantment is an empirical possibility, but Breaking the Spell doesn’t appeal to naturalistic explanations to refute or discredit religion.
My reaction to this is, stop pulling my leg. Not an attempt to discredit religion? Even a cursory survey of the parties to the debate shows a considerable case of ferocity against religion, of all kinds. It is a new kind of religion itself, about to form its own ‘jihad’, and it is ignorance disguised behind scientific baloney.
Since I am not a religionist, I can’t be accused of special pleading here. I share the hopes for a true secular age. But Darwinists have, unbelievably, blown the case.
The prob lem was stated plainly by Weiseltier in his review at the Times, whatever the case with his own beliefs: scientism is a superstition and a non-starter on the question of religion. Almost every scientific/sociological attempt to analyze religion since Max Weber has simply failed due to the one-dimensionality of the basic assumptions.
Producing a naturalistic account of religion is all very well, but what does that mean?
The term is incoherent in the way it is used. I take it that any consideration of consciousness a inch above Dennettian behaviourism is mystical. C’mon.
It is interesting that ancient India produced a materialistic/naturalistic version in the form of Samkhya for the wisdom teachings of the Upanishads. The later invasion of India by Islam created a revision or layer on top of the ancient tradition, one that was ‘theistic’, but the earliest form of these religions simply didn’t have the problems monotheists/scientists have in the nature/supernature divide. It is curious that Darwinism has degraded understanding in scientists to the level of fundamentalism. By their opponents ye shall know them.