The God Genome (Book review)

The NY Times (tip o'the hat to Ramesh Ponnuru on NRO 's corner) ^ | Feb 19, 2006 | Leon Wieseltier

[jocon307]

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.

[jocon307]

This is a review of 'Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' by Daniel C. Dennett

At the risk of starting a crevo skirmish I've posting this review. It's rather long, but worth it to read. Some parts are a tad over my head, but I think Wieseltier makes good points on the whole. But, of course, I always think that he does.

[jocon307]

Here is a review of the book quoted in the article you posted about Muslim rage and Iconoclasm. Sounds like they've got stacks of them over at the Times.

[proxy_user]

I am surprised the NYTimes takes this guy apart in such a thorough manner.

I guess the spirit of the OpEd page has not yet reached the Sunday Book Review section....

[gusopol3]

triangulation-- they both agree Christian fundamentalism is lowest of the low.

[RegulatorCountry]

"I am not at all claiming that this is what science has established about religion. . . . We don't yet know."

And yet Dennett goes on and on and on.

[Migraine]

Dennett's natural history does not deny reason, it animalizes reason.

No need for a crevo skirmish here. This review shows Dennett's anti-philosophical bent for what it is. This review is in the philosophically consistent tradition of some of Francis Schaeffer's work. Great post!

[jocon307]

I was surprised too. Weiseltier is very good at taking down the pompous, try and find his wonderfully scathing review of "Munich". It was posted here and JWR had it too for free reading. He's a lib, no doubt he's the literary editor of the New Republic (I meant to try and leave that tagline in but the article was so long I forgot), but he's got a brain and is a very good writer with a low threashold for BS, insofar as I've seen.

[StAnDeliver]

Bookmark

[jocon307]

Thanks Migraine!

[JWinNC]

that was an interesting read

[narby]

The review is difficult to read. Reviewer must have been stoned.

[Migraine]

The review is difficult to read. Reviewer must have been stoned.

I understood it; and I'm just an Arizona boy... :)

[jocon307]

I actually had to get up and turn down the radio to read it, so I think I know what you're driving at. I wouldn't say he was stoned, but it did seem rather convoluted in places.

[Dumb_Ox]

Hilarious. Dennett is a poor voice for neo-Darwinism, and the reviewer nails his blatant inconsistencies. I wonder if Dennett's acolyte Dennis Dutton will link this at aldaily.org .

Y'all who think this is convoluted need some learning.

[SirLinksalot]

This is a scathing review of Dennett's book. The reviewer is in essence, saying that Dennett's unquestioning faith in scientism is akin to superstition. Dennett is of course the author of one of the most popular books on Darwinianism -- CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE.

I especially like the following part from the review...

--------------------------------

There are a number of things that must be said about this story. The first is that it is only a story. It is not based, in any strict sense, on empirical research. Dennett is "extrapolating back to human prehistory with the aid of biological thinking," nothing more. "Breaking the Spell" is a fairy tale told by evolutionary biology. There is no scientific foundation for its scientistic narrative. Even Dennett admits as much: "I am not at all claiming that this is what science has established about religion. . . . We don't yet know." So all of Dennett's splashy allegiance to evidence and experiment and "generating further testable hypotheses" notwithstanding, what he has written is just an extravagant speculation based upon his hope for what is the case, a pious account of his own atheistic longing.

. . .

In the end, his repudiation of religion is a repudiation of philosophy, which is also an affair of belief in belief. What this shallow and self-congratulatory book establishes most conclusively is that there are many spells that need to be broken.