Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.84 AVERAGE
3.84 AVERAGE
2.5*
This book is extremely dense and apparently so am I.
On one hand, it is nice to have a perspective other than that of Richard Dawkins (although Dennett refers to his work frequently) when reading about religion, skepticism, and biological/mimetic fitness. On the other hand, Dawkins does a really good job at writing about these things--feeding the reader small bits of information and then returning to the point he is making--while Dennett... is a philosopher. About halfway through I lost track of what Dennett was trying to accomplish.
Unfortunately (for me, anyway) the subtitle "Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" mostly does not entail examining the minutiae of the interconnections between religious belief/practice and human biological existence. Dennett largely seems to be using this book as a platform to advocate studying religion impartially and rigorously, as just another non-supernatural human enterprise. Sounds fine to me, Dan.
I might take another whack at this book at a later date, but for now I'm looking for something mindless as a palate cleanser.
This book is extremely dense and apparently so am I.
On one hand, it is nice to have a perspective other than that of Richard Dawkins (although Dennett refers to his work frequently) when reading about religion, skepticism, and biological/mimetic fitness. On the other hand, Dawkins does a really good job at writing about these things--feeding the reader small bits of information and then returning to the point he is making--while Dennett... is a philosopher. About halfway through I lost track of what Dennett was trying to accomplish.
Unfortunately (for me, anyway) the subtitle "Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" mostly does not entail examining the minutiae of the interconnections between religious belief/practice and human biological existence. Dennett largely seems to be using this book as a platform to advocate studying religion impartially and rigorously, as just another non-supernatural human enterprise. Sounds fine to me, Dan.
I might take another whack at this book at a later date, but for now I'm looking for something mindless as a palate cleanser.
A philosopher argues that religion should be studied as a natural phenomenon.
Brilliant, a bit too conciliatory for my tastes, but excellently written. This book is a necessary step in modern philosophy and I highly suggest reading this work.
This book is written for religious people to start examining the origin of their beliefs from a scientific or naturalistic point of view. It’s not particularly interesting for someone who already takes it for granted that religion is something that comes easily to humans because we grant agency to inanimate objects. Plus it could have given an evolutionary advantage on its own, by increasing group cohesion. Unfortunately I don’t think this incredibly delicately written book will reach the intended audience.
In this book, Dennett is calling for a serious, fair look at religious thinking and behavior, using all the tools of science, logic and honest inquiry. He is a philosopher, and so spends a great deal of time defining terms and pondering the various possibilities he raises. His book is not a polemic against religion; indeed, he spends a fair amount of time pondering the notion that religion might well be good for us. He is no Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. The book is largely speculative -- a fact Dennett himself points out several times -- but the questions raised and thoughts provoked are well worth the time of thinking people. The author can be a bit windy, in pursuit of precision, but I think it worthwhile to slog through.
This book offers an in-depth look at how we came to develop religion. At the end of it, you’ll have a much clearer understanding of why religion ever came about in the first place, and how it has propagated throughout history.
It's a very well written, thoughtful & thought provoking book. It's a call for, believers & people who may have doubts, to examine & understand religion, faith & belief. It's a call to find out whether religion is actually good for people? Whether the more liberal variants of any particular sect should step in & criticize their more extreme counterparts? What is the proper way to understand religion? Whether this social taboo of examining religion should be broken & if so, why? It's a very good book & I would especially encourage believers or people who have doubts to read this book. It's written in a manner that will make you reflect & even ask yourselves questions you may not have thought of asking yourself before. It's a call to be honest, honest in society, to one's self & to be honest about religion since it holds a significant place in societies all over the world.
an extremely detailed look at the cognitive processes and social phenomena that could have led to the development of the world's folk practices and religions. dennett spends a great deal of time just justifying his attempt to explain religion's origins. while speaking of this book to someone in a diner, i mentioned dennett's linking of religion to a parasite- it doesn't exist for our own good, but for itself. he was very hostile to the idea, and stated that people should stop making out that religion is the problem. i say that when you have a belief that can only be believed in by the desire to do so, you better put up with people evaluating it critically. religious people will really scoff at this, and for reason- dennett's thesis is that religion grew out of cognitive processes to evaluate another entity's intentions, as well as our own inability to forget those who die, and our own desire to help make decisions that could go either way. dennett is honest that experiments have not been devised to test his theories, but invites people to do so, which is more than the theists have offered.
Because of the rather cumbersome first part, clearly addressed to an American public, I almost gave up reading this book. Fortunately, I did not, because in the second part Dennett gives an overview of some interesting theories on the origin of religions. It is not surprising that he prefers evolutionary biology ones, which always focus on the question of the evolutionary utility (cui bono?) of a certain development. That's the big difference with Richard Dawkin's [b:The God Delusion|14743|The God Delusion|Richard Dawkins|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1347220693l/14743._SY75_.jpg|3044365]: Dawkin's focus is on the truth question, Dennett's on whether religion is good for man or not.
I did miss the directness of Dawkins in this book, and the speculative nature of the many theories and hypotheses Dennett unleashes on the reader surprised me. But certainly the second part convinced me that Dennett is definitely the more intelligent thinker of the two. I especially found the distinction he makes between "believing in a God" and "believing in believing in a God" an eye-opener that should be developed further. But you can clearly see Dennett hopping on 2 legs in this book: he has an eye for the good sides of religion, but at the same time he regularly hints at what nonsense religions sell and how much evil they do, and that it comes down to 'breaking the spell'. Certainly in his last chapters you see the pendulum swinging back and forth in his text, and that gives the book a rather tousled undertone (although his stance as a combative atheist is very clear).
Ultimately, I especially remember this book's strong plea to subject religions to scientific research. And I think that is a good thing: everything must and may undergo the careful screening by science. I can absolutely follow Dennett in his outline of how cautious science should be in this, step by step and with a lot of empathy, critical and also open to self-criticism. “I would like nothing better than for this book to provoke a challenge — a reasoned and evidence-rich scientific challenge — from researchers with opposing viewpoints”. But at the same time, Dennett is a child of his time, with a rock-solid belief in the ultimate truth through science. Unfortunately, in my opinion, such scientism will never succeed in bringing out what’s really valuable in life.
(rating 2.5 stars)
I did miss the directness of Dawkins in this book, and the speculative nature of the many theories and hypotheses Dennett unleashes on the reader surprised me. But certainly the second part convinced me that Dennett is definitely the more intelligent thinker of the two. I especially found the distinction he makes between "believing in a God" and "believing in believing in a God" an eye-opener that should be developed further. But you can clearly see Dennett hopping on 2 legs in this book: he has an eye for the good sides of religion, but at the same time he regularly hints at what nonsense religions sell and how much evil they do, and that it comes down to 'breaking the spell'. Certainly in his last chapters you see the pendulum swinging back and forth in his text, and that gives the book a rather tousled undertone (although his stance as a combative atheist is very clear).
Ultimately, I especially remember this book's strong plea to subject religions to scientific research. And I think that is a good thing: everything must and may undergo the careful screening by science. I can absolutely follow Dennett in his outline of how cautious science should be in this, step by step and with a lot of empathy, critical and also open to self-criticism. “I would like nothing better than for this book to provoke a challenge — a reasoned and evidence-rich scientific challenge — from researchers with opposing viewpoints”. But at the same time, Dennett is a child of his time, with a rock-solid belief in the ultimate truth through science. Unfortunately, in my opinion, such scientism will never succeed in bringing out what’s really valuable in life.
(rating 2.5 stars)