Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett (Darwin, beliefs, doom, evolution)

[Escéptico]

I wrote this article some months back for the Amazon.com: Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett - religion Discussion Forum. Is this of interest to anyone here at RF?

I highly recommend Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon to believers and nonbelievers alike. I'll summarize Dennett's ideas here, but I strongly urge anyone interested in the religion debate to experience it in full. Dennett is careful not to alienate believers: he makes it clear that the “spell” he’s trying to break isn’t religious belief itself, only the social sanction against objective investigation of religion. Believers should at least understand Dennett’s points before they criticize his thesis.

Dennett asserts that while there are no persuasive arguments for belief in God, the existence or non-existence of a deity is actually just an incidental point in the phenomenon of religion. The *belief in belief* is central to understanding his critique. The UK edition of the book puts Dennett's central metaphor on the cover: the ant climbing up a grass stalk because it's been infested with a bacterium that reproduces in a cow's stomach. This free-floating rationale doesn't do the doomed ant any good, but it's an evolutionary strategy that works for the bacterium. In the same way, the religion meme benefits from promoting human behavior that may not benefit humanity in the long run.

In the infancy of the existence of Homo Sap, humanity understood all natural phenomena as products of the intentional activity of their deities. Religious behavior centered on pleasing the powers enough to bring good harvests and keep them safe from enemies or natural disasters. The knowledge compiled and passed down (concerning what should be eaten, what behavior to encourage, what steps to take in medical emergencies) was considered unquestionable for a very Darwinian reason: if people didn't follow the exact behavior set down in the Scripture, it was quite literally a matter of life or death not only for individuals but possibly for the tribe. In its initial form, religion was an ur-inquiry program that systematized knowledge about the natural world.

The roots of religion also enshrined credulity as an important virtue: just as a child's brain is wired for acceptance of authority, the social worth of regarding religious lore as unquestionable pays for itself in the survival of the religion and its adherents. The free-floating rationale was starting to develop: believers didn't have to understand the reasons they were doing what they were told, but the behavior must have saved more than it sacrificed.

The rise of more objective forms of inquiry eventually usurped religion's role in explaining natural phenomena. No longer were supernatural explanations needed for biodiversity, the weather, heredity, or other subjects once considered the domain of the divine. But religion survived, because it had an important adaptation that kept it safe from its competitors in the meme pool: its insistence on unquestioning acceptance, the notion of faith. Now the free-floating rationale became exclusively adapted to the survival of the meme: believers were supposed to do what they were told, even in the face of evidence that the behavior was ineffectual or harmful.

This is how religion has adapted and perpetuated itself. The actual ideas themselves are irrelevant. God can be a big magic guy or a transcendent power or a `a basis of all being.' Religious behavior isn't expected to have concrete environmental consequences, or contribute to personal or social survival. Any sufficiently pleasant sensation (or even an overwhelming one with a neurochemical basis) could be defined as religious experience. The main thing isn't belief, but the belief-in-belief. The claim that faith is good for the individual and society has to be inviolate for the meme to survive.

Many believers on this forum claim that religion can't be judged on any other terms but its own. And that's necessary to perpetuate the meme. Theology is the religion's way of showing its believers that it has relevance in a more complicated technological and ethical culture: it reconceptualizes religious belief and makes it appear relevant in the context of 21st-century reality. If anyone questions the objective validity of these claims, believers can dismiss the criticism without even trying to understand it. Religious faith is a self-validating system, and never has to make more than a half-hearted attempt to rationalize its own basis.

Dennett has given us a patient, reasoned analysis that doesn't attack believers. Getting rid of religious belief isn't his aim, just an honest look into the historical, psychological, and cultural co-evolution of religion with humanity.

[stephenw]

Interesting post Esceptico. I'd love to read this book but won't/can't in the near future as I've books coming out my ears at the moment.
Wasn't it Dennett who claimed that phenomenal consciousness is a conceptual confusion ?
The reason I bring this up is that it seems to me that much debate regarding faith and belief arises from a conceptual confusion as to what in fact constitutes belief or faith. It seems to me that we all believe in belief, some in science, some in God, some in both.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by stephenw

It seems to me that we all believe in belief, some in science, some in God, some in both.

Well, it's useful to remember that belief in science doesn't depend on the belief itself. What I mean is that I don't have to believe my car will run: if it's been well-built and responsibly maintained, it should run. If the car is missing crucial parts, on the other hand, no amount of belief will make it run. Driving a car is analogous to a free-floating rationale, because you don't have to understand why a car works in order to drive somewhere. However, anyone can take automotive courses and learn all about the intricate workings of an internal combustion machine. Whatever one's philosophical beliefs, the physics of an automotive is intelligible and consistent.

We can't apply that same logic to religious belief. No believer expects confirmation of his belief, and none would accept any circumstance as constituting disconfirming evidence of his belief. It works merely because the believer decides that it works, for whatever reasons he decides are adequate. Unlike the car whose inner workings you don't need to understand to drive it, there's no basis to this free-floating rationale. Religious behavior and professions of faith are performed even if they're essentially meaningless. This is what Dennett calls the belief-in-belief: the notion that belief is justified is more important than the details of the belief itself.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

, no amount of belief will make it run.

I think this part is why we've differed on opinions about this. I'm not trying to get back into it, but I hope you don't think that I'm implying that belief makes something happen. I don't think believers in theism believe that their belief is what makes God exist, but it's what will get them on his good side. In the sme vain, I don't think anyone would say that your belief will make your car run. It's just that you believe it will every day. There are some days when it won't, and you can't change that no matter what you do, but you still hold the belief that it will run every time you get in.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by stephenw

The reason I bring this up is that it seems to me that much debate regarding faith and belief arises from a conceptual confusion as to what in fact constitutes belief or faith.

The confusion is merely semantic.

Our belief in science is based on our rational understanding of the scientific method and its ability to circumvent the biases that limit our individual perspectives. I usually avoid saying we have faith in science, because it's faith only in its most generic sense: we believe, with good reason, in its ability to enlighten us about natural phenomena.

Religious belief is different, because what people believe many times conflicts with other beliefs they have about the world. That is, while we believe that a proposition is true because it's consistent with our other various beliefs about the world, religious beliefs are held outside of the context of our other beliefs. The faith in religion takes the form of excusing religious beliefs from the same analysis we give all our other beliefs.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

The confusion is merely semantic.

Our belief in science is based on our rational understanding of the scientific method and its ability to circumvent the biases that limit our individual perspectives. I usually avoid saying we have faith in science, because it's faith only in its most generic sense: we believe, with good reason, in its ability to enlighten us about natural phenomena.

Religious belief is different, because what people believe many times conflicts with other beliefs they have about the world. That is, while we believe that a proposition is true because it's consistent with our other various beliefs about the world, religious beliefs are held outside of the context of our other beliefs. The faith in religion takes the form of excusing religious beliefs from the same analysis we give all our other beliefs.

For the record, I agree with everything you said here. The sentence in bold is an especially good point.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

religious beliefs are held outside of the context of our other beliefs. The faith in religion takes the form of excusing religious beliefs from the same analysis we give all our other beliefs.

I strongly disagree with this.
All my beliefs together make up my world view, none of them are compartmentalised and they are all subject to the same analysis. This includes religion and science.I agree with Thomas Kuhn when he says that science is "predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like." Science has great value but it's view of what the world is like rightly keeps changing as knowledge progresses. Science does not know what the world is like, it does the best with the information to hand. So with religion, it too does the best with the information at hand.
All scientific and religious knowledge is subjective and provisional, all are subject to change. Some think Science is true to the exclusion of all else, others believe the same of religion.
Many see both as tools which can help in the quest for subjective understanding.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by stephenw

Science has great value but it's view of what the world is like rightly keeps changing as knowledge progresses. Science does not know what the world is like, it does the best with the information to hand. So with religion, it too does the best with the information at hand.

The very reason we value scientific inquiry is that it assimilates new information. Of course our concept of the universe will increase in accuracy and coherence with more testing and more information, that's the strength of the process. We test propositions until they're robust enough to consider true.

Is that really what we do with religion? Is there truly a program for testing the validity of religious beliefs, or do we merely believe things for psychological reasons that have little to do with evidence or logic? Dennett asserts that religion adapts to remain relevant to as many people as possible. Whatever the degree of variance among their conceptions of God or spirituality, individual believers keep the religion construct operating by supporting the notion that religious belief is important to society.