Not news, but I wanted to capture this 2006 Independent review of Dan Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.” As a fan of Dennett it was useful to capture a review that made the distance between Dennett and Dawkins clear. OK so Dennett also falls into using the term “scientific” to mean rational in this theological content, and clearly if a theist wants to hold beliefs that conflict with science, then it is the theist’s responsibilitity to make their case scientifically – but then that’s an opinion about science.
For many people,
nothing matters more than religion.
For this very reason,
it is imperative that we learn as much as we can about it.
That, in a nutshell, is the argument of this book.He does not say,
as some have inaccurately accused him of doing,
that this [religious faith] meme has to act as a malign virus.
Dennett is altogether more “reasonable” than Dawkins. Believing in memes does not have to be accompanied by crass over-reductionist simplification.