Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
Ratings8
Average rating3.3
15
Ratings8
Average rating3.3
For all the thousands of books that have been written about religion, few until this one have attempted to examine it scientifically: to ask why—and how—it has shaped so many lives so strongly. Is religion a product of blind evolutionary instinct or rational choice? Is it truly the best way to live a moral life? Ranging through biology, history, and psychology, Daniel C. Dennett charts religion's evolution from "wild" folk belief to "domesticated" dogma. Not an antireligious screed but an unblinking look beneath the veil of orthodoxy, Breaking the Spell will be read and debated by believers and skeptics alike.
Reviews with the most likes.
I have been debating for a while whether or not I should write a review. I have a LOT to say about this book. At the end of it, you will think why the hell I gave it four stars? Well, first of all, it is because it goes with my views. I know. That sounds like I am a real hypocrite but... Fuck you. Second, I can tell the REAL TANGIBLE effort put into the book. Third, I like the writing style. It made me LAUGH SO HARD a lot of times. “Disney's kingdom of Allah” LOL
Well why am I going to bash this book?
First things first. The DUDE (Dennett) started the book really well. He got me hooked up and all, but if he was going for example, to find a definition for religion, he would go around talking talking talking and you can realize he is marching towards his goal... but... sigh... he would drift at the last moment and wouldn't reach anything fundemantal or of importance. But since he said that he was going to ask more questions, than pose answers, I would say that he did indeed succeed with doing that. But would anyone want to read a book full of questions without any essence in it? no. But I have to admit, the questions he asked were remarkable.
Second, a lot of parts were meaningless and boring. I didn't know where he was going with what he was saying, and most of the times, just no where. He would break the argument in the middle of it.
Third, well, at the end of the book everything just went downhill at the speed of 152 km/s. The writing style worsened, and he stopped being genuine. He was not saying anything new. You can find on facebook as regular posts most of the points he mentioned, so the book wasn't special anymore. BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT, the idea of the “belief in belief” makes sense, and is quite remarkable and... NEW. LOVED IT. I found out that, if not believing in belief in God, at least I acknowledge its existence, and that's good because it made me think. I loved that chapter, but at that time his writing style's value was diminishing so the chapter lost its importance to me.
