Breaking the Spell by Daniel C. Dennett

[Philosophy Now]

Paul McGavin’s faith remains unshaken by Daniel Dennett.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Brea ... _C_Dennett

[Lynn]

The book's synopsis - can and should science study religion? - then providing analysis of the origins and effects of religion does not appear to be unique nor the stuff of which scientific breakthroughs are made. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_t ... Phenomenon.)

Paul McGavin’s review is that the book is not scientific because it takes a skewed approach in both methods employed and objective, "not calmly to understand the life of faith, but to shatter it – to ‘break the spell.". Paul McGavin's suggestions in the review demonstrate that he is accepting of scientific study, rather trying to fight a corner skewed in favour of religion against science - which is what I thought the article may have been about.

[Jonathan.s]

There was a damning review of 'Breaking the Spell' in the NY review of books, in 2006, which started:

THE question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions of our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so. For a sorry instance of present-day scientism, it would be hard to improve on Daniel C. Dennett's book. "Breaking the Spell" is a work of considerable historical interest, because it is a merry anthology of contemporary superstitions.

The orthodoxies of evolutionary psychology are all here, its tiresome way of roaming widely but never leaving its house, its legendary curiosity that somehow always discovers the same thing.

remainder is here.