Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

Daniel C. Dennett. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking, a Member of Penguin Group (USA), 2006. 448 pages. $25.95 (hardback).

Reviewed by Chris Winchester

Introduction

Is religion the result of Darwinian evolution? Many recent books explain how evolution could have produced religion. Pascal Boyer’s Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (2001), James McClenon’s Wondrous Healing: Shamanism, Human Evolution, and the Origin of Religion (2002), and Lewis Wolpert’s Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief (2006) are three prime examples of recent books in this genre. As the evolutionary interpretation of religion becomes increasingly popular in American society, Christians should be prepared to respond to this type of argumentation.

Daniel C. Dennett’s book Breaking the Spell presents an evolutionary interpretation of religion. Dennett is a professor of philosophy and codirector of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. He is regarded as a top Darwinian philosopher and is well-known for his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (1995). However, Dennett is not a religious scholar, so he moves a bit away from his expertise on the academic study of religion.

Dennett informs the reader that Breaking the Spell is geared toward American readers and focuses on religions in America.1 In chapters 1-2 he writes about the definition of religion and how science should be related to religion. He briefly discusses various naturalistic theories about religion’s origins in chapter 3, but he does not defend them. The bulk of Dennett’s argument is found in chapters 4-8, where he argues primitive religions, such as shamanism, evolved into more complex and organized religions. Chapters 9-11 contain Dennett’s perspective of religion’s place in American culture. He also admits in the final chapter that many portions of the theory he presents in chapters 4-8 may be false (p. 310).

Dennett’s Definition of Religion

For his part, Dennett defines religions as "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought" (p. 9). However, his definition is too narrow since it excludes religions such as Taoism, Confucianism, and Religious Humanism,2 among others. This definition also does not encompass the mystical element of religion. Dennett asserts that all aspects of religion are natural phenomena. Although some facets of religion certainly are natural, as Dennett asserts, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all facets of religion are natural.

Dennett’s Thesis: Of Genes and Memes

Although Dennett does not directly state his thesis, he appears to argue that a Darwinian model of cultural evolution can account for the existence of religion through the replication and mutation of memes. Biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in his book The Selfish Gene (1990). There Dawkins defined a meme as "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation." Dennett compares memes to genes and asserts that memes serve a function in cultural transmission, similar to the role genes serve in genetic transmission. In other words, memes are pieces of cultural information that are repeatedly copied, transmitted, and randomly mutate over time (p. 78). In evolutionary terms, the "fittest" memes survive and the "weaker" memes do not. This process is completely random at times, indicating that religious ideas and practices can arise without someone intentionally designing them. Dennett argues that the memes found in folk, or "primitive," (p. 398) religions (i.e. shamanism) evolved into organized religion over the course of history.

Mysterious Memes

Although on the surface Dennett’s meme hypothesis appears plausible, it suffers from numerous problems. First, there is no empirical evidence indicating that memes exist. Dennett concedes that empirical investigation of memes is still in the "pioneering" stage (p. 355), but responds by arguing that words are types of memes, so memes must exist since words exist (p. 80). However, this is circular reasoning. Dennett cannot rationally conclude with certainty that words are a type of meme without being certain that memes in general exist.

Second, critics3 argue that a meme is difficult to define and is therefore impossible to falsify (falsification being one component of a scientific model). Thus, one must question whether or not Dennett’s theory is genuinely scientific, since the foundation for his theory cannot (yet) be falsified.

Third, assuming memes exist, some memes may originate from a supernatural source (or sources). Therefore, even the meme theory would not necessarily demonstrate that religion is completely natural.

Fourth, evidence suggests that cultural evolution does not occur in a random Darwinian manner. Dennett acknowledges that there are instances in which cultural changes are directed, but he argues that some changes, such as changes in religion, can occur without direction (p. 79). However, he does not establish that religion originated without direction (supernatural or human).

What about Mysticism?

Dennett underestimates the significant role mystical experiences serve in religions such as shamanism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. In fact, most religions contain a mystical element. Dennett asserts that social and cultural factors hugely affect the content and structure of people’s religious experiences (p. 11). While social and cultural factors often shape religious experiences, there are exceptions, which Dennett does not address.

Some Ancient and Modern Mystical Experiences

One exception is the near-death experience (NDE), a mystical experience with elements not always shaped by social and cultural factors. Dr. Raymond Moody coined the term "near-death experiences" in his book Life after Life. An NDE reportedly occurs when one is revived from death, or comes close to death. Anthropologist James McClenon has reported that ancient NDE accounts share common features with modern NDE accounts.4 Further, NDE accounts from prior centuries in Europe, China, and Japan are extremely similar and often include elements that do not correspond with the theologies associated with the time period.5

Also, NDEs often spark an interest in religion. Specifically NDE survivors are attracted to New Age churches or Eastern religions6 (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.). In his book Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West, Alan F. Segal suggests that religious experiences, such as NDEs, have contributed greatly to various theologies over time. Therefore, Dennett would be better served to consider the importance of mystical experiences.

Is the Mind what the Brain Does?

In chapter four Dennett argues that one must understand how the mind evolves to understand why religion captivates people’s interest. Dennett asserts that the human mind is not immaterial and that the mind is the product of the brain’s evolution through natural selection (p. 107). However, NDEs challenge this assertion as well. Many survivors of NDEs accurately relay information that they typically would not have access to while unconscious, or close to death. For example, Dr. Melvin Moorse writes about a girl named Katy, who nearly drowns in a pool. While near death, Katy has an out-of-body experience that permits her to observe a variety of activities occurring at her home.7

Similarly, cardiologist Michael Sabom catalogs many instances in which patients described events that occurred in hospital operating rooms with amazing detail, and some patients were able to determine who visited them, while they were unconscious.8 These reports suggest that at least some aspect of the mind exists independently of the brain.

Are Shamans Hypnotists?

Dennett argues that shamanism is a natural phenomenon (p. 136) by (wrongly) utilizing anthropologist James McClenon’s thesis that shamans perform ritual healings by hypnosis, often associated with ingestion or inhalation of mind-altering substances. At best, McClenon’s research demonstrates a correlation between hypnosis and shamanic healings. It does not prove shamanic healings are caused by hypnosis. In fact, McClenon concedes that "supernatural and natural processes may occur simultaneously."9 Thus, Dennett cannot rule out the possibility that shamans may have genuine spiritual experiences during altered states of consciousness caused by hypnotism and/or mind-altering substances.

Further, McClenon informs his readers about instances in which he hypnotized volunteers to induce shamanic experiences. McClenon writes that some of the students who played shamanic roles described "spirit journeys" on which they observed unusual events occurring at their homes that were later confirmed.10 McClenon’s experimental results hardly appear to be completely natural.

Dennett’s theory does not address other phenomena associated with shamanism. For example, it does not account for apparent spirit possession or the characteristics associated with apparent spirit possession. These characteristics include, but are not limited to: seizures,11 changes in voice, and abnormal strength.12 Religion scholar Mircea Eliade reports Gilyakan and Eskimoan shamans allegedly "emit flames from their mouths, their noses, and their whole bodies" during séances.13

Dennett writes that "shamans tend to run in families, according to a wealth of anthropological evidence, but this could, of course, be due entirely to vertical cultural transmission (of the shamanic memes from parent to child)" (p. 137). But Eliade says that shamans do not always run in families. Shamanism among the Yakut people in Siberia, for example, is not hereditary.14 Also, "the gift of shamanism" among the Votyak is believed to be acquired directly from the "Supreme God"15 through dreams and visions.16

Dennett’s Genetic Fallacy

Dennett postulates that belief in God is the result of humans’ tendency to attribute "agency" to "anything complicated that moves (p. 114)." However, this argument does not negate God’s existence. How humans came to believe in God is a different question from whether God exists. Consequently, Dennett commits the genetic logical fallacy (in which the origin of a claim is confused with its justification) by insinuating that belief in God is false based on the way humans came to believe in God.

Can Evolution Account for Rationality?

Dennett’s argument that evolution produces an instinct in humans that leads them to adopt a false belief in god(s) causes his entire thesis to be self-refuting. In his discussion of rationalistic memes.17 Dennett maintains that evolution can lead people to embrace false beliefs. If so, how can Dennett be certain that the meme for Darwinian evolution is a rational meme? After all, evolution is a religious belief in religious humanism. Also, how can Dennett be certain that his theory about the evolution of religion is rational? Why should Dennett trust the rationality of his mind? Further, how can Dennett conclude rational memes even exist, given that evolution can cause people to embrace false beliefs?

Is Christianity a Natural Phenomenon?

Finally, since Christianity is rooted in historical claims, Dennett’s thesis must account for its rise by natural processes. The earliest Christians taught that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the only way to God, and that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead, in confirmation of Jesus’ claims. Plus, much of Christian revelation seems beyond human capacity—much less desire—to invent. Doctrines such as sin and grace seem unlikely to have arisen by naturalistic means. Dennett needs to posit some natural explanation to counteract these claims. Otherwise, the validity of Christianity as a supernatural religion remains unscathed.

Conclusion

Breaking the Spell fails to portray religion as a strictly natural phenomenon. Dennett’s theory relies heavily on hypothetical constructs known as memes, and consists largely of unsubstantiated speculation. Further, even if one grants that memes exist, Dennett fails to consider the possibility that some memes may be supernatural in origin (such as the "memes" some shamans receive during ecstatic experiences). Dennett does not provide a naturalistic interpretation of mystical experiences, which play a vital role in most religions. Finally, Dennett’s thesis does not explain historic Christianity as a natural phenomenon, because he does not propose a naturalistic theory that accounts for the apostles’ claim of Jesus’ resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:11). Consequently, this book does not threaten the validity of Christianity at all. Christian apologists will want to read this book to be familiar with its arguments, but it may be tough sledding at times for the layperson.

Bibliography

  1. Ankerberg, John and John Weldon. The Facts on Near-Death Experiences: What Does the Bible Say? Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.
  2. Corduan, Winfried. A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads Between Christianity & World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
  3. Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Penguin Group, Inc., 2006.
  4. Eliade, Mircea. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964, 1992.
  5. McClenon, James. Wondrous Healing: Shamanism, Human Evolution, and the Origin of Religion. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2002.
  6. Moorse, Melvin, M.D. with Paul Perry. Closer to the Light: Learning from the Near-Death Experiences of Children. New York: Villard Books, 1990.
  7. Sabom, Michael B. Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1982.
  8. Segal, Alan F. Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West. New York: Doubleday, 2004.
  9. Zaleski, Carol. Otherworld Journeys: Accounts of Nearth-Death Experience in Medieval and Modern Times. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

End Notes

  1. Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Preface xiii.
  2. Religious Humanists’ beliefs are described by the Humanist Manifesto 1, which is available at http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html.
  3. J. Poulshock, “The Problem and Potential of Memetics,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 30, no. 1 (2002): 68-80; S. Atran, “The Trouble with Memes-Inference versus Imitation in Cultural Creation,” Human Nature-An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 12, no. 4 (2001): 351-381; L Benitez-Bribiesca,  “Memetics: A Dangerous Idea,” Interciencia 26, no. 1 (2001): 29-31. Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 34-40.
  4. James McClenon, Wondrous Healing: Shamanism, Human Evolution, and the Origin of Religion (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2002), 126.
  5. McClenon, Wondrous Healing, 127.
  6. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on Near-Death Experiences (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1996), 19-20.
  7. Melvin Moorse, M.D. with Paul Perry, Closer to the Light: Learning from Children’s Near Death Experiences (New York: Villard Books, 1990), 3-7.
  8. Michael B. Sabom, Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1982), 111-112.
  9. McClenon, Wondrous Healing, 12.
  10. McClenon, Wondrous Healing, 81, 82.
  11. Mircea Eliade, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964, 1992), 15.
  12. Eliade, Shamanism, 365.
  13. Eliade, Shamanism, 474.
  14. Eliade, Shamanism, 16.
  15. Dennett also seems to be unaware of research regarding original monotheism. The late British scholar Andrew Lang and anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt laid the foundation for examining original monotheism. Schmidt argued that some of the world’s oldest societies, such as certain Australian aborigines, African pygmies, Philippine tribes and some Native American tribes in Central California, worshipped a ‘Supreme God’ or a ‘Sky God.’ Most of these cultures viewed the ‘Sky God’ as being the only god. These cultures also perceived God as a father, creator, everlasting one, all-knowing one, the all-good one, and the all-powerful one. Even more recent religions possessing many gods, contain references to a Supreme Being, and the Supreme Being’s characteristics are almost identical in many religions. For more information, consult Winfried Corduan’s A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads Between Christianity & World Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 38-40.
  16. Eliade, Shamanism, 15.
  17. Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, 231.