Regarding "The Spell"

 

Question:-

Have you read ""Breaking the Spell - Religion as a natural Phenomena" by Daniel C. Dennett? It is a popular book that claims to be a study of Religion including Islam. But it seems to be purely from a Western secular atheistic point of view - more like propaganda. What would be an Islamic reaction to the assertions in this book?

Answer:-

Yes I have read it.

I can only tell you my opinions from an Islamic point of view as I understand it.

Many Muslims, and other people religious or otherwise, know that there is much wrong with religions as they are understood and practiced today. We know that better knowledge and reformation is required. In this respect Dennett's book is enlightening and valuable.

But Dennett speaks as an outside observer who has not undertaken a religious discipline and has no experience of God or accepts or even understands the concept, but seems to be wholly immersed in the Western Secular world. He says his book is an investigation into religion, and though it provides us with numerous possibilities and theories, he also gives expression to some standard atheistic opinions and prejudices. However, it is not difficult to see that many of his criticisms and objections are true about religions as practiced today.

My comments as follows will hopefully clarify the Islamic position:-

(1) The fundamental error in the book, it seems to me, is that no distinction is made between Religion, Philosophy and Science, and therefore, between values, meanings and facts. Though these are interdependent systems of thought, they differ in their emphasis. He is a Philosopher who should be dealing with meaning, but he deals with Religion from an external semi-scientific factual point of view and not from an inner religious one. Religion has to do with the inner life. It is not concerned with raw facts but with how they relate to people and how man should relate and adjust to Reality. Truth in Religion refers to this. It is not understood through sensory experience or through reason but by how it affects the being of a person, the system of inherent information of which a person is composed. The awareness of the self-consistency of this varies among human beings.

(2) For instance Dennett interprets the name Islam, "submission" not as a psychological or spiritual state but as an instruction to promote the spread of Islam (Page 186). But that is obviously not a primary aim of Islam, but something that arises from (a) recognition of the truth of Islam, (b) identification of oneself as an agent of the creator, and (c) as a work of benevolence, compassion and charity towards ones fellow human beings. It seems to me that Dennett has completely missed the point of religion. He seems to think that Religion as an idea, a meme, has taken possession of people and it is not the human being that is in control. But this is similar to the idea of possession by demons or satanic agents or of "obsession" in modern psychiatric terms. This certainly happens to people but it is not religion. Religion is about taking control of one's life. In Islam, surrender means realising that one contains the Spirit of God and that this constitutes one's real Self.

(3) Dennett defines Religion as "A social system whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought." Beginning with such a definition he is quite unable to understand religion at all, as understood in Islam at least. The word "Religion" means "to bind back to one's origin". True religion is defined in Islam as "surrender to Allah", where Allah is the fundamental Reality, the Creator of all things and the origin of the Spirit in man that bestows on him the faculties for consciousness, conscience and will. It is concerned with objective adjustment to Reality which requires objective awareness, motivation and action and the knowledge, motives and techniques of producing these. Religion should be regarded as the result of the realisation that a human being is a small part of total reality, depends on it and interact with it; that his welfare and development depend on his adjustment to Reality. As consciousness it becomes inevitable that some people at least realise all this and this realisation has consequences in thought, feeling and action. Religion can be regarded as the process of evolution becoming conscious in man.

(4) Dennett confesses that he does not understand what "spiritual" means, though this is a central concept in Religion. He does not, therefore, recognise spiritual efforts or goals, but only physical and mental ones. But many religious people also misunderstand the concept and often mistake it for emotionalism or sentimentality. In fact, it refers to an emanation from God that creates the soul in man, the seat of consciousness, conscience and will. It gives him the potentiality for the impulses of faith, love and hope, contact with God and the progressive development of the divine qualities.

(5) He wants to analyse religion by rational means. But religion is about values that are integral to life and, therefore, something that is much more fundamental, something that affects motives and leads to the search, interpretation, organisation and application of facts and to creativity, initiative and responsibility. It is not about the intellect but about the heart, about faith, love and hope, about motives and behaviour, and about consciousness, conscience and will. It is not that Religion ignores facts or that there are no values in science, but that facts are interpreted in Religion according to values, and values underlie science which it does not examine. It is not sufficient to know facts, but we also need to know their meaning - how they relate to us. And even more, we want to know their significance and function in the scheme of the whole of Reality.

Reason depends on sense data, but apart from the outer senses we also have inner senses that make us aware of movement, feelings and thoughts and inner processes that are also affected by external forces but which we are not normally conscious of. Apart from the senses and reason we also have spiritual faculties for consciousness, conscience and will. Not everything is understood through reason; an appropriate framework of reference is also required. But spiritual truths are those that produce faith because they are consistent with a person's being. However, this requires the growth of consciousness. It cannot be denied that much of what is called faith is addiction or prejudice. Or that it is a working hypothesis which is to be proved by the results of behaviour based on it. So we have to describe three kinds of faith:- (i) Confidence in that which works and has been found to be useful. (ii) A working hypothesis as described above (iii) A spiritual faith as described above.

(6) Dennett tells us that the purpose of Religion is to provide comfort, to explain the otherwise inexplicable and to encourage group co-operation. Whereas these are certainly aspects of religion, he has wholly missed the basic fact that Religion is about Spiritual evolution, the enhancement of consciousness, conscience and will - of providing a purpose to life, a self-image with a function with respect to existence, and a framework of reference for interpreting experiences in a unified self-consistent manner. In fact, a good case can be made out to show that it is the enhancement of consciousness, conscience and will that religion brought about which is responsible for the advancement of civilisation, its arts, sciences, philosophies, ethics and charitable works, including hospitals and educational establishments.

(7) He says we do not know what religion is about and therefore wants to investigate it. But we can see that though he does not know there are certainly people who do know what religion is about. But he does not consult them. He mentions several different theories about Religion, but claims that only one of these can be true but that no body knows which it is. He thinks that because of this ignorance investigation should be done but assumes that the kind of investigation he has in mind will provide the truth. But all this is his own belief and it could also be wrong. This is not, of course, to say that investigation should not be done. Certainly it is important to find the truth. But it cannot be done without the appropriate methods which presuppose some knowledge what it is. Religion from the Islamic point of view is a comprehensive self-consistent conscious way of life as opposed to an accidental unconscious and undirected one. Religion is evolution becoming conscious in man.

(8) He does not differentiate between the teachings of a religion and people who know, understand and practice it to different degrees or not at all but may behave in a manner contrary to the teachings. Nor does he differentiate between the original teachings by the founders and what religion has become later in its doctrines, motives and practices. If he had made these distinctions he would have seen that the defects he criticises religion for are really the characteristics of human beings which religion came to rectify. Though he admits that changes have occurred, he considers them to be part of the Religion. In fact, religions encourage the development of consciousness, conscience and religions develop as these develop or degenerate when habit, tradition and ritualism erode these spiritual faculties, until a fossil shell remains without life. Religion has to be resurrected from time to time.

(9) There appears to be an assumption that Religions as they exist now must be either beneficial or harmful to man and that they are all the same. That the whole of it should be retained or rejected no matter if it contains beneficial or harmful features. The fact, however, is that purification is required. There are harmful features associated with Religions, as with all other things, and obsolete one that need to be removed and beneficial features that need to be enhanced. But the judgement of what is good or bad depends on the values that the religion brings. This cannot be judged from subjective personal prejudices.

(10) Dennett speaks of the evolution of religion through various environmental and social factors such as the development of agriculture which brought about settled life in cities where organisation, law and uniformity of doctrines became necessary. Certainly religions are adapted to the conditions of the time, place and people otherwise they would be useless and could not survive. But in fact, religions were brought through revelation by founders known as Prophets or Messengers. He wants to ignore consciousness altogether and wants to explain religion by genes and memes in a mechanistic way. He ignores completely what people say about why they join or adhere to a religion. He is interested not in the spirit or even the mind of religion but only the body.

(11) He makes judgements about various aspects of religion based on his own prejudices and cultural conditioning - e.g. his ideas about democracy, reason, and what is good and beneficial or shameful. He admires Love but does not think it is enough. He also thinks that personal values should not be imposed on others. So he bases himself on values he does not and cannot justify, but nevertheless attacks religions because their values differ from his. He has his own unexamined assumptions about the nature of the Universe and man from which platform he judges all other things. His investigation of Religion is based on assumptions that come from science e.g. the Biological Theory of Evolution. He has ignored the Religious criteria altogether. This is like trying to assess the volume of things by using weight measures or of judging a book of poems by rules derived from physics or economics, or judging foods by their aesthetic rather than their nutritional value. He wants scientific investigation for Religion but does not consider that science gives us partial knowledge. We all know that scientists keep changing their mind as to what is true and that commercial and political interests often distort scientific information. I do not suppose that Dennett has wondered whether he might be suffering from the delusions he thinks religious people suffer from.

Objectively speaking values should arise from the function which a thing has with respect to the system to which it belongs. Ultimately, from the religious point of view, they arise with respect to the purposes of God. The good is that which fits the purpose and evil is that which flouts it. Religion values the Spiritual faculties for consciousness, conscience and will more than reason. Reason merely goes where motives lead. Muslims do not believe that personal or popular prejudices or culturally induced ones are objective values that they must accept and abide by and make no apology for abiding by values that come from what they take as the objective source.

(12) He quotes a number of scholars but obviously selects them to support his previously held assumptions. This cannot be regarded as objective research. He quotes a number of people who have a very naive understanding of religion or prejudices against it and could not possibly be regarded as authorities on the subject. But he goes through some of the purely logical arguments about the existence of God and finds that empirical (experiential) evidence is required because the purely logical arguments are faulty. One can also point out that such arguments can also consist of complete nonsense when the terms have no meaning or are misunderstood and that mere thoughts without motivation and action are useless. That requires not just belief but faith. But he appears to deny that corroboratory religious experiences are valid despite the fact there is agreement about them by many people.

(13) He believes that chance and accident can explain all things. But this is nonsense as anything comes by chance also disappears by chance and things can only persist if there is some law that causes it to persist. Chance is a name for ignorance and requires order to explain it. We have to explain the source of the wholeness of existence that contains matter, energy, information, life and consciousness. In fact, without consciousness nothing can exist for us because all knowledge is in our consciousness. But why, he asks, worship and pray to that Reality? This depends on what is thought to be the purpose for these activities. The answer is that we wish to adjust to Reality by interacting with it in a more intimate and direct manner and at a more conscious level. Prayer at its lowest level can be regarded as self-suggestion and at a higher level as attempts to contact the divine spirit within one.

(14) He believes that Religion is not something built-in in the human organism but something culturally transmitted. But from the Islamic point of view it is integral to being human - the Spirit of God is in man - though human beings are usually unconscious of this. He thinks that religions are man-made. But this is disputed by Religions. Though religions come through human beings their source is objective Reality. Man-made religions are regarded as false religions.

(15) He assumes that Religion is a "Natural Phenomena" as opposed to something super-natural. Whereas it is agreed that it is natural, he assumes that "natural" means physical existence. It does not occur to him that Reality might be something much more extensive than physical Reality. We do have minds with images and thoughts that we process and we do have variable consciousness, conscience and will and these are also real. Disease, perversions and addictions are also natural. But religions tell us what is good or bad by describing a purpose to which they relate. No such purpose is recognised by the natural sciences.

(16) Dennett's idea of knowledge appears to be simplistic. He thinks that factual knowledge is of supreme importance and ignores knowledge of meaning and values. Knowledge should be defined as awareness of Truth and Truth does not mean only impersonal facts, but something that is integral to the existence of an entity and the being of mankind. It is the imbalance between factual knowledge (information) and values (morality), and between causes and purposes, that is the main cause of the malfunctions of humanity.

(17) He makes the common mistake of supposing that there is a contradiction between saying that a phenomenon was produced by certain natural causes and that God caused it. He makes the same mistake as some naive religious people in believing that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive ideas. Religious people can say that God is their maker though they know full well how they were born. There is a distinction between the nature and existence of something and the process by which it arose and its function with respect to the system it belongs to. However, these three can be different aspects of the same thing. Even something human beings create must undergo a step by step process before it is finished and it must serve a purpose which justifies the process in the first place. Human beings get their capabilities from nature o which they are part. Religious people simply do not believe that the process is "blind". It does not make sense. But others think that blind evolution makes sense. This could be because of ignorance about the nature of consciousness and recognition. It is unbelievable that consciousness should be confined to human beings arising in them from nothing. It seems self-evident that if intelligence can explain certain processes then those processes must also be intelligent.

(18) Dennett naively supposes that the mind is the brain, a widespread superstition. This is because he has failed to make the distinction between the physical structure, behaviour and consciousness. The mind which refers to behaviour most certainly does not depend only on the behaviour of the brain, but also on the rest of the nervous system, the endocrine system, the circulation of blood, the immune system, the muscles and the functioning of every cell in the body. Consciousness which is diffuse and directed by attention is not the same thing as mind. He should have known this as he admits that animals have minds but are not aware. Certainly thought go on in our minds without our awareness.

(19) He speculates that Religion may have been transmitted by mimicry - replication with some variation like genes. They are what Richard Dawkins, the Biologist, calls Memes, and I have called Psychons. It is true that this is what does happen, but it does not explain the origin of the religion. It is not what Muslims or other Religious people would call Religion, because that is supposed to be a conscious way of life. People are required to understand it and behave accordingly in a deliberate manner. Memes or Psychons transmit information but, as I have pointed out elsewhere, there are three types:- Satons that transmit subjective conditions such as prejudices; Cultons that transmit ideas derived from culture such as Democracy; and Theons that transmits ideas derived from objective sources such as trees. We also have to distinguish between three types of behaviour - (i) Instinctive behaviour patterns IBP or Instons, induced through genetic information transmission. (ii) Social behaviour patterns SBP or Psychons, induced by social information transmission. (iii) Conscious behaviour patterns CBP or Constons, induced by conscious information transmission. A particular behaviour pattern might be a mixture of these.

(20) He speculates about the nature of Religion as follows:-

(i) There is something addictive in human beings and other organisms leading to habit formation such that things that may have been useful once but are so no longer still persist. Religion may be such a relic. However, Islam and other religions warn us against addictions and clinging to traditions. Religion could not have started as an addiction. But certainly it can become an addiction particularly if the pleasure principle is involved. Perhaps it provides comfort or a feeling of personal significance, love and security.

(ii) Religions could be self-replicating systems using human beings like parasites or be like symbiotic partners. This can also be true when there is an organised Church and Priesthood concerned only with self-maintenance of the institution.

(iii) Religion exist because some valuable characteristics have become associated with it by accident or design e.g. social harmony, group unity, the power and advantage of those who have control of the system. Or perhaps it is just a hobby that occupies interest or something that is regarded as beautiful rather than useful such as the provider of ceremonies and art.

(iv) Religions may be propagated and persist because of sexual selection. That is, the females prefer males who display certain characteristics and these are associated with Religion. Reproduction, therefore, propagates these characteristics and, therefore, also the Religion that inculcates them. But the question is: why do the females have this preference? The answer is that it is advantageous for survival and reproduction. However, the same motive causes males to prefer females with suitable characteristics. In more general terms, we could say that the values that are current in a society have an evolutionary function, and that the values current in a society should consist of things having evolutionarily function and this includes enhanced capabilities. This can be regarded as a view compatible with religion or Islam.

(v) He thinks that belief in gods may depend on the tendency to attribute agency or minds - belief and desires etc. - to anything that moves. This is usually known as animism. I would say that this is justified in so far as mind = behaviour, provided consciousness is not attributed to it and it does not apply to dead things such as machinery. It is just a question of not supposing that human minds are different in kind from other organisms but that there are differences in degree. However, imagination can certainly run away with us when there are no constraints from knowledge and reason. This is what religion requires us to guard against.

(vi) Human beings have a tendency for invention by emphasising and exaggerating certain features and diminishing or ignoring others, of reinforcing or neutralising ideas in their minds, all depending on their interests, desires, fears, likes and dislikes, and what gives pain or pleasure. Insecurity caused by lack of knowledge often causes wild explanatory speculation. All conversations, literature and the media including Newspapers and TV do this all the time. The world we are aware of is, therefore, not like the real world. Stories and novels are made up and some of them are believed. The ability to differentiate between an externally induced experience and an inner imagination, thought or opinion varies. Whereas this can apply to religions, it could also apply to the sciences and arts.

(vii) Gullibility and the hypnotic effect of power sources, authority figures such parents, teachers, leaders, and institutions, are well known factors that inculcate ideas and behaviour patterns. There are also techniques of suggestion, hypnosis and conditioning. These ideas may of course serve only the self-interest of the authorities or those who use the techniques and be harmful to the victims who willingly submit in the false belief that it is beneficial for them. The idea of an all-powerful all knowing god is the ultimate authority figure. There is also the placebo effect of things that have been endowed with a reputation. Religion may have this function. Or they may be crutches used by the inadequate. There is even a gene that causes proneness to hypnosis that has been named the God-gene.

It is true that Christianity, for instance, consists of teachings and practices not found in their scriptures but taken from pagan sources and that even their scriptures have been selected, from a great number written by various people for different purposes, by the Church and under the rule of the Roman Emperor Constantine. In Islam too, the religion has been interpreted to serve the interests of various rulers. However, the original teachings in the Quran remain preserved and can be recovered. It is true also that in the face of the Universe human beings are relatively weak and powerless and we need to find and cling to the sources of power and find security. Everyone has some kind of god. It is a question of ensuring that real solutions are sought for this inherent problem rather than illusory or ineffective ones. The purpose of religion is to do just that.

(viii) Difficulty in decision making leads to the use of aids e.g. flipping a coin, astrology, various methods of divination, prayer etc. More generally, the desire to shift the burden of responsibility from oneself to others leads to the creation of institutions and ideas including the State, the Church and God. Islam requires personal responsibility and self-reliance.

(ix) Dennett mentions some very primitive religions, such as the Cargo cults, that are clearly full of the superstitions of primitive people faced with advanced civilisations that they could not understand. But these are not religions according to an Islamic definition of Religion. They clearly show the kind of mentality that causes the erosion of true religion.

(x) Other theories about Religion are invented from time to time by those who do not wish to admit that there is more to Reality than the mundane familiar world as presented by their senses or reason. Though Dennett claims to investigate Religion, in fact he defends the anti-religious lobby. One could say that he is speculating and groping in the dark. Many of the various factors he mentions as possible causes for religion are really what corrupts religion, things one should be aware of in order to counteract them, things attributed to Satan, the principle of deception. The fact is that people adhere, or ought to adhere to religion because they believe it - that God exists and that he commands them to behave in certain ways and because they want to obey Him. But people understand and practice their religion to various degrees. Fundamentally it is a question of understanding and applying, experiencing and the transformation of being. Other considerations are irrelevant to the essence of Religion.

(21) One objection to religious doctrines is that the belief in them cannot be tested. This is because if opposite statements give the same results, they cannot be falsified and therefore, persist. If, for instance, prayer fails that is no proof that it is ineffective. God is not obliged to answer prayer. As God can do anything and is a mystery beyond our understanding, this prevents rational discussion. There are self-sustaining vicious circles involved in religious thought. All this, however, is inevitable because the concept of God must account for everything in a self-consistent manner and we only have a small amount of knowledge. In a self-consistent system all parts must support each other. But the validity of the whole of the system cannot be proved except by its consistency within a still greater system. But the ultimate system must simply be taken for granted. You cannot prove logically or through reasoning that logic or reason is valid, or scientifically that science is valid. The proof for religion or these other systems is that they work in the wider world. They produce the result expected or desired. Indeed, even the concept of God contains a contradiction. He is not an object, but he is not "no thing". If you believe in God but have a false concept of Him then you are an unbeliever, an atheist. But if you are an atheist you must believe in something as fundamental and supreme and that is God. If then you ask someone to tell us whether he believes in God, then the truthful answer could be yes and no depending on what you mean.

(22) Dennett points out that though Truth must be everywhere the same, there are a number of different religions and sects in the world, all disagreeing about what is true. One cannot decide between them. They may all be false. The answer is that the above considerations are also the reason why sectarianism comes about. Different people select and adhere to different aspects of God, but unfortunately elevate their partial and relative views to the position of an absolute dogma. The group of believers in a sect is held together only by "professing" a belief and not by a common belief. And this brings them in conflict with other groups. In fact, it is not known how other people experience or understand things. Each understands according to his or her set of experiences or knowledge and how they have processed it and that differs from those of others. There are some common experiences within localities and by virtue of the fact that all human beings have something in common. There are different levels of agreement and disagreement. Sects are therefore illusions and the disputes and conflicts between them are about words, and Islam forbids sectarianism. We are required to seek and expand knowledge and understanding. The closer one comes to Absolute Truth the greater is the agreement between people. This is like approaching the centre from the circumference of a circle.

(23) He thinks, correctly, that different people now and in different ages understood the word "God" differently. This makes the word ambiguous leading to confusion. Agreement or disagreements about God are, therefore, illusions. He suggests that they should abandon the word and coin different names for the various different concepts.

Comment:- There is a difference of course between believing that some thing exists and believing that the idea exists or that the belief exists. In fact, it is necessary to distinguish between the reality, the experience of it and the verbal description. When we speak about the verbal description we have to distinguish between:- (i) The denotation, the fact or the objects to which the word refers. (ii) The connotation, the meaning, the concept, the bundle of characteristics. (iii) The Function, the value or significance of it in the scheme of life. As for the denotation, the term "god" certainly refers to many different things. As to its connotation, the term refers to anything that people worship and subordinate themselves to. As to its significance, the term "Allah" refers to that which is described in the Quran and it should not be confused with the ordinary use of the term "god" or even "God". It is necessary to understand that there are degrees of knowledge, understanding and awareness - we have only partial knowledge and different amounts and sets. It perfectly possible for two or more people to believe in the existence of something, but they can have different amounts of knowledge about it. Experts can understand things better than non-experts.

In fact there are several different kinds and levels of Reality. The world described in scientific books is not at all like the world we see and experience daily. The world of our social interactions is different from the world of nature. Are the objects and events we see on the computer or television screen real or not? As we can all see them, and discuss them, they are real but they have a different kind of reality from other things. Are the characters and their activities in novels real? Again we must say that they are but not in the same way as the things we see. The same applies to the images and thoughts in our minds. The world described by science is a subset of the world of ideas. That is a subset of the world we experience. And that is subset of the world as it exists and which we can define as the Absolute World, the Divine World. Dennett, like many other intellectuals, has mistaken the World of Science for the Absolute World.

(24) Dennett speaks of the economic model of religion; the transactions or covenants involved in it; the rewards expected and the price to be paid and one is willing to pay. And how strong the desire is to defend what one has or expects. There is also competition between various suppliers (different religions and sects) that lead to advertisement, pressure salesmanship and conflicts. It has also been noted through research in the USA that Evangelists try to find out what people want from religion and give it to them. Certainly people do expect a reward in heaven or even on earth, and these and the sacrifices they make could be material (money etc.) or social (friendship, status etc.) or psychological (security, love, significance, integration, stability and various spiritual characteristics.) It is, of course, also possible that the gains expected or the sacrifices made are illusions or misinterpretations or real or mixtures of these. Different sects offer different ways of obtaining the goal and even easy payment – e.g. buying absolution from sin, or just believe in the crucifixion, or performing rituals without need for any effort. However, that is not according to the teaching. Effort is required but that is only a preparation, to make the vessel receptive.

(25) He naively asks why an All-powerful God would want people to believe and worship Him or why He would be insulted if people abuse him verbally or blaspheme. The answer, as any religious person would give, is obviously that what human beings do does not affect God but only themselves for good or evil. Human beings are only required to do what benefits them. Impressions from experiences, the physical, social and cultural environment, from words, objects and events can be nutritious, poisonous or catalytic to various degrees. We do have capacity to transform the input from what is harmful to what is useful or vice versa to various but limited degrees, but must take precautions beyond that.

(26) Dennett insists that religion can be studied and understood by non-religious people, but it is well known even by him that people can not experience the experiences of others. He justifies his opinion by pointing to the fact that experts such as Doctors are assessed by non-experts. But he does not notice that each expert is best understood by another who has the same expertise. The assessment by non-experts is about things that are common to all such as the usefulness or effectiveness of things such as procedures or dugs. In so far as a religious person makes a logical statement then logicians can certainly assess it. But you cannot judge music if you have no appreciation for it or judge science or mathematics if you have no aptitude for them. There is no doubt that what people understand and believe depends on their abilities, motives, and the efforts they make and also on their experiences and the framework of reference in which they interpret their experiences.

(27) Dennett admits that religion has been shown to improve physical and mental health, morale and morality, stability and happiness. But this he thinks has nothing to do with the doctrines of Religion. False ideas can have the same effects as in hypnosis for instance. These, however, can also have bad effects. The fact is that Religious doctrines are means by which the good results are to be achieved. But undoubtedly some doctrines are better than others in producing the same results and in producing better results. All theories are created for a purpose. They refer to something. They are not truths in themselves. The purpose of scientific theories is to produce intellectual understanding, control and useful technologies. In religion they are meant to facilitate adjustment to Reality and spiritual development. In either case it is faith that causes behaviour to be based on the doctrines.

A person is formed by the forces of the World of which he is part. The Being or Nature of people by interaction with Reality leads to Consciousness of Reality, which leads to Doctrines that lead to Motives which lead to Action and that causes transformation of Being and the environment. W > B > C > D > M > A > W. Reality refers to the entire cycle.

(28) Dennett thinks that people can be morally good without Religion. There are also religious people who have done much evil. Therefore, he argues religion can be redundant. It is not denied by Religions that people can be good without religion because the Spirit of God is in them and gives them conscience. But the fact is that people, religious or otherwise do evil either because circumstances cause them to malfunction or they are weak and under great temptations or they are misled by false or distorted doctrines. In comparing religious and non-religious people, he does not consider how much those he regards as believers understand or practice their religion or how much non-believers are influenced by religious traditions. This failure gives false results. It is observable that the decline of religion has also eroded moral values. Laws exist in all nations to prevent evil but only a relatively small defined set of laws. Religion is better in that it provides an inner policeman which unlike an outer one can see and judge everything a person does or thinks. Moreover, Religion is positive in also stimulating good actions which the law cannot do. Without a doctrine, movement or community with a value system it is perfectly possible for people to do and justify anything whatever. There is a big difference between those who merely drift along and those whose behaviour is consciously directed. But religion comes for the sinners. It is not the case that the religious person is better or worse than others but that Religion improves them. But it is also true that some people are made worse because they use religion for their own ends, unconsciously or even consciously. The same can be said about any instrument. This obviously has to be guarded against. However, the actions of people motivated by religion may well be misjudged by people who have their own axes to grind.

(29) Dennett thinks that the religious idea of doing good for "a reward in heaven" is demeaning. Is that a scientific term! Would he rather that people behave without reason or purpose? Can people really do what has no advantages for them? If they act without motive, then that is called mechanical or impulsive behaviour and is not generally recognised as a virtue. He keeps telling us that evolution took place because there were advantage to be gained from certain characteristics and behaviour patterns. Is that demeaning? And how could it be otherwise? In fact, even things done for love of God, as religions instruct us, seeks a reward in nearness to God, which is another definition for Paradise. But the phrase "rewards in heaven" has also been misunderstood. It does not refer to gains in material wealth, worldly power or prestige or sensual pleasures. It refers to spiritual excellence and self-fulfilment. God is perfect and His spirit in man, usually dormant, refers to the possibility of that perfection in man. The punishment and reward of God, Divine Justice, are consequences of laws such that they refer to the harm or benefits a person brings to his own soul by his actions. It is all a question of comprehension. It cannot be denied that people differ in their degree of intelligence and level of understanding. All must be catered for.

(30) Dennett admits that people cannot be experts on everything and have to rely on experts - imams, rabbis and priests etc. - but he thinks that people should judge them. How this is to be done without becoming an expert? Certainly Islam requires us not to follow authorities blindly - we are responsible for own souls. We have to cultivate our own understanding. In fact, people tend to take others as leaders according to their own level of intelligence, usually those whom they can understand and agree with or who agree with them. This happens in Politics and cultural societies as well as religion. But Dennett's suggestion is designed mainly to counteract terrorism by religious groups. He admits that the so called Islamic Terrorism is motivated by politics rather than religion, but he fails to notice that it is in retaliation for a much more virulent global Western political, economic, cultural and military terrorism. Such blindness and one sided bias does no service to the cause of mutual understanding, justice and peace. On the contrary it encourages terrorism. It is amazing how even supposed highly intelligent people succumb to self-interested political propaganda by power groups. It is usual in the West to differentiate actions by private persons or groups and those done by governments in the interest of the State. This is a kind of self-deception through rationalisations. Those, like Muslims, who go by objective values, (those derived from God or Reality) cannot make such distinctions – good is good and evil is evil whoever does them. It is only those who take their values from the State who make such distinctions. In that case they will support any conflict that must inevitably arise between states that pursue their own selfish interests at the expense of others. There is then no end to conflict between States, and there will also be an inevitable conflict between those who hold such narrow values and those who hold the objective values and must defend themselves against these others.

(31) He does not understand why people subject themselves to the religious disciplines particularly when this takes time, energy and resources away from what could be physically or socially useful or pleasurable in this life other than that the belief in the Hereafter is a delusion. He does not see that this belief is connected with the inner awareness of the spirit and the reality of soul, which may not be clear when consciousness is turned outwards and fixed on material objects. But his criticism of monks who devote themselves entirely to the "purification of their souls" as selfishness of the same kind as those who devote themselves to improving their stamp collection is valid to some extent. It is a form of escapism or self-indulgence. There can be no development without resistances and temptations to overcome, and the usefulness of the individual to the community is reduced. However, the arts and sciences of civilisation were once developed, protected and preserved in monasteries. If spirituality is understood correctly as referring to consciousness, conscience and will, not emotionalism and these are what makes us human and capable of knowing and doing what is true, good, useful and beautiful, then the development of these is certainly of primary importance. It is nothing like stamp collection, or any other mode of self-indulgence that have no benefits. The development of these spiritual characteristics changes the motives and behaviour of people and, therefore, their interaction with the environment including other people directly and indirectly. Islam is also about spiritual development, but against withdrawal from the world because man has a function as an agent of God. The life in the world itself provides all the resources, opportunities and challenges required for spiritual development.

(32) Dennett wants reformation of religion by means of ideas, mainly his own ideas. If his suggestion that Muslims should criticise the tenets and values of Islam means that he hopes that this would lead to its gradual erosion, then the suggestion is rather bizarre. Muslims are people who have accepted Islam as true and as a criterion from which all other things are judged. It cannot be judged by extraneous values taken from personal prejudices or cultural conditioning. It is religion that comes to transform man and society not the other way round. If religion was to be transformed by the accident of social events then that would make religion wholly redundant. But the desire and effort to increase knowledge and understanding is a good thing and is an Islamic requirement. Reformation is certainly required in order to remove the misunderstandings, superficialities, impurities introduced from extraneous sources and what is obsolete and has been transcended and to enhance what is good and spiritually beneficial. But Dennett, like many others in the West wants Islam to be reformed in conformity with Western ideals. It does not occur to them that this planet is occupied by others besides themselves whose values and interests are equally valid and might be better than theirs. They are also blind to the great number of psychological, social and environmental problems that have arisen in the West, threaten the welfare and even the existence of mankind and need urgent solutions through a different value system than theirs.

In fact what is needed is transformation of human beings. This cannot be done without comprehensive and a self-consistent set of techniques. These include ideas, but must also consist of personal efforts within an appropriate discipline, and changes in the environmental, social and cultural systems. In short, it requires a religion.

We can conclude that though Dennett's book is interesting and even useful in some ways it cannot be regarded as a profound insight into the essence of religion; much less a convincing argument against it and it can be dismissed as such.

----------<O>----------

Contents