Monday, 20th of February, 2006

No real comments from me yet, but Leon Wieseltier (Literary editor of the New Republic, mind — not a philosopher) has committed a rather iggorant review in the NY Times of Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, previously mentioned on this blog. I’m hoping to pick up the book soon, and have little doubt I’ll love it (although I need no convincing in its central thesis), but I can’t comment in-depth, having not read the book yet.

I’d like to point out an excellent rebuttal though, by Brian Leiter, entitled Why review a book of philosophy when you can sneer at it?. I strongly recommend reading the Leiter; there’s no doubt there will be many more responses like Wieseltier’s to the Dennett, and Leiter provides a useful tonic against them, expressing much better than I could why indignant cries to the effect that you just can’t do that are philosophically unworthy. Wieseltier brings out that old saw about science (or here, “scientism”) being just another superstition, which Leiter swiftly puts paid to; but the main tack of Wieseltier’s review is that Dennett’s philosophy is lacking, and that’s where Leiter is particularly illuminating.

Amazon is of course the home of ignorant reviews, so here’s one (see link from the book title above):

This book is based on the premise that God doesn’t exist or else is completely disinterested in human affairs. If you accept this premise, the author is right: why be ruled by religion? If you believe in God and you understand what God demands from us, this book is ridiculous.

Of course, Dennett is not starting from the premise that God exists because, as this reviewer correctly notes, there would be no point to the book if it were so. But for most people, belief isn’t primary, although Dennett has spent considerable energy pointing out pervading Mind-first trends in philosophical thought, and questioning their validity. To take a Mind-first stance is to stop asking questions, to stop being curious, and the point at which this happens is entirely arbitrary. I’ve read enough of Dennett on this and related subjects to know that what he’s doing is demonstrating that if you keep asking questions, you’ll dissolve more and more of the mysterious fog that surrounds and nurtures superstitious beliefs.
And by revealing the historical basis of religious beliefs, Dennett is throwing doubt upon those very beliefs. It’s a tricky point, and Leiter puts it thus:

He [Wieseltier] does not seem to realize that an account of the historical genesis of a belief can have bearing on the epistemic status of that belief, that beliefs with the wrong kind of etiology are epistemically suspect (…) It is true that you cannot show a belief to be false by explaining its origin, but it is clear you can show that holding the belief is not warranted by explaining its origin.

5 Responses to “On Leiter on Wieseltier on Dennett on religion”

1. cassandra says:
   February 20th, 2006 at 6:51 pm

   ignorant*

   :P

   p.s. check your lj streaming..

2. Peter says:
   February 20th, 2006 at 8:15 pm

   I knew somebody would “correct” me. I used the word “iggorant” advisedly - it has just the sound I wanted to convey.

   I never check the LJ syndication. Will go there now.

3. Whimsical Monkey says:
   February 21st, 2006 at 2:38 am

   I agree with your post, except that “iggorant” just looks iggorant.

4. Norman Costa says:
   February 22nd, 2006 at 10:01 am

   I am disappointed in Leon Wieseltier’s review of Dennett’s “Breaking the Spellâ€?, as much for its poor analysis, as for its closing, ad hominem insult. As a scientist, I know of no others who meet Mr. Wieseltier’s definition of Scientism. They and Dennett are more accurately characterized as believing that science is the only arbiter for describing the properties of things in the natural world – things like liquid water, and theoretical constructs like the particle theory of subatomic phenomenon, and the evolution of religious behavior.

   There is no problem in Dennett’s assent to Hume’s two questions regarding religion (its foundation in reason, and its origin in human nature), while not accepting Hume’s response to the first. How many of us agree on a question while differing on our enlightened responses and discourses? Yet, Mr. Wieseltier uses the distinctions in Dennett’s thought process to accuse him, inappropriately and unfairly, of misquoting and misrepresenting Hume.

   Dennett is very clear, if not forthright to a fault, by saying he is offering his own speculation on what science may find in a study of religion as a natural phenomenon. Is he not explicit about doing so from the perspective of evolutionary (instrumental and functional) biology. Wieseltier seems to delight in uncovering Dennett’s words on this, as if he has uncovered a secret, revealing passage, and hitting Dennett with a Gotcha!

   Wieseltier dismisses Dennett’s reasoning because Dennett’s view presupposes human reason to be a natural phenomenon, based in biology. Then when Dennett uses the word ‘transcend’ to describe high levels of human reasoning, Wielseltier gives him another Gotcha!, and attaches the opprobrious label of ‘animal’ to Dennett’s human reason. Wieseltier assumes an ‘obvious truth’ that human reason is a faculty that exists apart from its biology, a la Descartes. Well, here is where the discussion should begin. Instead, Wieseltier chose to end it, not prematurely, but before it even started.

5. Peter says:
   February 22nd, 2006 at 3:42 pm

   I haven’t read the book yet, so I’ll comment more when I have, but it will definitely be instructive to give my own rebuttal of Wieseltier when I have. He misunderstands, and thus misrepresents, fundamental parts of Dennett’s philosophy. Dennett has worked hard to show how we can “transcend” the biological while still being, as you say, “a natural phenomenon, based in biology”. Wieseltier’s Gotcha! is embarrassing because it shows conclusively that he doesn’t comprehend Dennett’s philosophy.
   This could, of course, be Dennett’s fault, but in his more recent writings (particularly Freedom Evolves and the papers in Sweet Dreams) he’s increasingly careful about heading off misinterpretations at the pass. I expect Breaking the Spell to be beautifully reasoned, and I can’t wait to read it.

   Thanks, Norman, for your excellent comment.