REVIEWS & RECONSIDERATIONS The God Meme Charles T. Rubin magine a tone-deaf music schol- notes cannot explain is not worth ar, who against the tide bravely explaining. Far from being a dis- Iinsists that music is really all ability, our acute’s tone-deafness is about the patterns formed by the the tool that allows him to rend the written notes on the page. He calls curtains of musical mystification. himself an “acute.” He is proud of This acute scholar has a great deal his open-mindedness; he has actu- in common with Daniel Dennett, phi- ally talked to people who claim they losophy professor at Tufts University, enjoy listening to music. They are National Book Award and Pulitzer not a bad lot on Prize finalist, and the whole, but what Breaking the Spell: Religion as a self-proclaimed Natural Phenomenon he hears from them “bright”—that is, by Daniel C. Dennett only confirms his Viking ~ 2006 ~ 464 pp. nonbeliever. While beliefs. For even the $25.95 (cloth) he admits he is no so-called experts expert on the par- disagree radically in their judgments ticulars of religious doctrine, he has of what they hear, and most of those interviewed believers and sees that who just plain enjoy music seem religion can play a very positive role inarticulate about why they like what in their lives. But the real story of they do, and ignorant about how religion is the spread of a corrosive music actually works. As bad, when illusion—inspiring acts of interde- people “make music,” they do it for nominational brutality, or standing a bewildering variety of motives, in the way of scientific progress, or some good, some not. So it is hardly dulling individuals to the truths of surprising that often very popular existence. Even acknowledging the “musicians” have unsavory personal good that religion does for some habits. All in all, the scholar is only people—as a source of comfort in reinforced in his theory that any- mourning or character-building thing about music that the written for the weak-willed—it is perfectly SPRING 2006 ~ 71 Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. CHARLES T. R UBIN possible that “something we could Some of that study might even be devise might do as well or better.” useful, despite the fact that there Dennett has also noticed that believ- have been “few good researchers, in ers disagree about what their faith any discipline” who have taken up demands, and can be pretty murky the topic. These “second-rate col- on its particulars. Combine this leagues” have done second-rate work shocking situation with the obvious because the objective study of reli- dangers crusading religion seems gion has largely been the province to be playing in the twenty-first of social science, which is not at all century—Christian fundamentalism the sort of science Dennett believes at home, radical Islam abroad—and is worthwhile. Rather, what we need you can understand why Dennett is an inquiry into religion informed believes it is time to “break the spell.” by Darwin, a study based in the The bright man’s alternative to piety “testable hypotheses of evolutionary is a scientific account of the origins psychology.” and workings of religion, one that allows us to see religion for what it s Dennett presents it, evolution- is and then move beyond it. Aary psychology starts from the Dennett believes—or wants us to insight that the brain evolves interac- believe—that by proposing the sci- tively with the external environment entific study of religion he is bravely to have capacities which, in human breaking a taboo. But it seems unlike- beings, produce certain patterns of ly that Dennett has much to fear from thought. Some of these capacities and his colleagues at the university club, patterns prove competitively advan- and even he must repeatedly qualify tageous, others do not. Religion, as his claim to the title of taboo-breaker. Dennett defines it—“social systems No doubt many pious believers are whose participants avow belief in a unwilling or uninterested in seeing supernatural agent or agents whose their most fundamental beliefs close- approval is to be sought”—repre- ly scrutinized. At times, Dennett sents a pattern of thought that is claims to be writing to such believ- evidently extremely powerful, given ers, trying to get them to open up how omnipresent it seems to be in to such examination. But the more a human history. Dennett thinks that potential religious reader is likely to theories of evolutionary psychology be upset by Dennett’s book, the less are beginning to get a handle on why likely he would be to pick it up in the that might be true—that is, under- first place. standing the benefits and costs of the And of course, Dennett is perfectly religious way of thinking, and how aware that we have “been looking it fits into distinctive human mental carefully at religion for a long time.” structures. 72 ~ THE NEW ATLANTIS Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. THE GOD MEME For example, Dennett makes the tion. The one you just have to pass interesting suggestion that man’s on to friends is a successful meme; it ability to adopt a deeply layered sticks in your head and it replicates “intentional attitude” (i.e., I think when you tell it to others—although that he thinks that I think, etc.) in probably not exactly the same way it our relations with other humans may was told to you. At some point, that spill over into our dealings with the difference may make it less funny natural world, leading to various or more. The memes of 11th-grade forms of animism. Other sugges- American history may not stick in the tions seem less promising, such as 11th-grade head as well as the latest the trite notion that threats of hell- pop song, but they get themselves fire, because of their “deep psycho- published and republished in books logical impact,” are a powerful means that will remain required reading to enforce the profession of beliefs long after that pop song—successful that are otherwise incomprehensible. enough on its own terms—resides in Maybe for some. Lincoln could joke a forgotten MP3 file. about the shovel thief who, when Meme theory is pretty heady stuff, threatened with damnation as he was and Dennett uses it to maximum caught in the act, quipped that with advantage, even though by doing credit extended for that long, he’d so he puts himself in conflict with take two. the evolutionary psychologists on A crude evolutionary argument whom he otherwise relies. Dennett might conclude from the widespread believes that memes are “selfish”; persistence of religious belief that their success at replication does not it conveys a competitive advantage. mean that the tools they use to rep- Dennett’s use of the “meme” concept licate themselves—us, individually allows him to cast doubt on any such or collectively—benefit. Their rela- conclusion. Just as genes are the tionships with hosts may be mutu- basic units that transmit our biologi- ally beneficial, or neutral, or para- cal traits, memes are the basic units sitic. Even though he calls for more of our culture—ideas and concepts. research, Dennett is pretty sure that Memes are replicators driven by the the religion meme is parasitic. How same evolutionary logic that drives else to explain the persistence of reli- biological replication: the differen- gious teachings so manifestly at odds tial success at reproduction caused with what modern science tells us by variations that prove adaptive, or about the world? How else to explain not, under competitive circumstanc- the propensity of religion to become es. That joke that you hear and forget fanaticism? How else to explain that is a meme that cannot compete suc- the United States, a country with cessfully with others for your atten- such impeccable Enlightenment cre- SPRING 2006 ~ 73 Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. CHARLES T. R UBIN dentials, should continue to exhibit take what they have to say seri- such a powerful place for religious ously, except as data. At times, “we” belief ? Religion is stuck in our heads means the elite academic commu- like a bad commercial jingle; it is a nity; at other times, it means modern dangerous spell that needs to be bro- democracy as a whole. His idea of a ken by science. national conversation would appar- ently exclude the likes of Thomas f religion is a bad meme, the way Jefferson, who though perhaps him- Ito get rid of it, or to get rid of its self a “bright,” still trembled for his most dangerous forms, is to focus nation when he remembered that on transmission. (Because he wants God is just. If Jefferson really meant innocent believers to be held mor- that a Divine creator has providential ally responsible for the dangerous oversight over the affairs of man, he actions of religious fanatics, the dis- can’t be part of the discussion. tinction between faith and fanaticism A second policy recommendation is consistently obscured in the book.) is that teaching the truth about reli- Dennett says he is against “crude gion—the truth as discovered and and cruel” programs of religious proven by modern science—should hygiene such as were attempted in be mandatory in all schools, whether the Soviet Union; they don’t work, public or private. As Dennett puts it, and (worse?) they often lead to a “We teach them about all the world’s religious rebound.