Return to Review

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

A Review
Chapter 3
Daniel C. Dennett's

Breaking the Spell
by Doug Renselle

Doug's Pre-review Commentary

Start of Review


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Notes Appendices

Move to any Chapter of Doug's Critical Review of Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell,
or to beginning of its review via this set of links
says, "You are here!")


Chapter 3...............Why Good Things Happen


This chapter has four sections:

Section 1 - Bringing out the best (our criticisms here follow what we did in Chapters 1 and 2)

Section 2 - Cui bono

(Literally, to "whose good?, whose advantage?, what value?" Focus here is Creation vis-à-vis Evolution benefit of either against other... Doug offers a simple answer: 'science' checked religion, AKA "The Enlightenment" — when Romaninsalita catholicism was rampaging Europe inquisitvely — and in early Millennium III 'religion' is checking, AKA "The culture wars" — science's attempts at 'scientifically correct' antireligion thingking vaccinations. Cui bono, indeed! Two classically dialectical thoughtcop polemicists, religion and science, sparring copyrrhonistically for thingking hegemony over humans. Apropos! Amen! Doug - 25Feb2006.)

Section 3 - Asking what pays for religion

Section 4 - A Martian's list of theories

Again, Chapter 3, Section 1 offers, for us at least, a overwhelming feeling that we have been here before.

Way back in January, 2001 we critically reviewed a letter by Scott C. Smith to APS subgroup Forum on Physics and Society titled Demarcation Between Science and Non-Science. Smith's point then was similar Dennett's: "Religion is unscientific."

That work has been lying dormant. But in late June, 2005 it reignited. Please take timings to read it. Unfortunately Smith insisted that we remove his original text from that web page, but Forum on Physics and Society's site still shows it for comparison to our review. We have text of that letter if you cannot find it. Doug keeps YE archives of all prior years of Quantonics publications, plus intra year archives of major site revisions.

That review might be viewed as a mini review of Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Sincerely, if you want a quick summary of what is at issue here, quickly and simply, see that review. It is only ~30 short paragraphs, some single sentences, long.

It is notable that Dennett self-refers "a Bright." That's from 'science's' Enlightenment, The French Enlightenment, actually an endarkenment, as you will see in our Chapter 3, Section 2, 'Cui bono' graphics and text below. Perhaps Dennett will someday learn to self-refer "a Dark." (Classically 'a bright' is metaphorically analogous what Quantonics intends by DIQhead.)

Few are aware that one hermeneutic of Jesus is "Light."

But is Dennett Bright? Let's find out... (classically, probably 'yæs,' quantumly, probably "n¤")

Section 2, Cui bono, is meatier.

Dennett, similarly Scott C. Smith, essentially says Science (Evolution) is real, but Religion (Creation) is phony, Smith says, "unscientific." Classical! Dialectical EOOO 'Science.'

Pirsig says both are partially right (better) and both are partially wrong (worse). Quantum Philosophy and Science! Latter confides each individual perception as part of a massive perceptual psyc~holog~ram ensemble we call "quantum~perceptual~reality." A huge quantum SOON. Better is similar classical 'l¤cal' con(m)sensus. Worse is similar classical absence of global con(m)sensus. (E.g., USA and Iraq.) Quantumly, both c¤mplement one another as everywhere~associative~quantum~included~middle quantons(worse,better), and are SON together~holographic exigencies for quantum~pragmatic real PNFings' exegesis of whole quantum~reality. A kind of quantum~Gestalt. A kind of quantum heads~tails macroscopic uncertainty -

quantum_harmony quanton(discord,accord). Doug - 26Feb2006.

We can explicate here what Pirsig implies. Classical dialectic fundamentally disallows evolution (By zeroing h-bar: by stopping reality.)! Classical science and religion both practice dialectic. Which is right? See how dialectic evokes classical paradice? Doug - 4Mar2006.

Let's review some Western cultures' 'science' and 'religion' funda mentals (Doug admits his unlimited ignorance of Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Doug's current interests lie in (Pirsig's "ancients") ancient precursors to Gnostic Jesus' Christianity. Latter is radically omnifferent 'catholicism' and 'protestantism,' both of which, like classical 'science,' are SOM-dialectical which is radically omnifferent quantum~MoQ.).

'Science' Funda mentals:

'Religion' Funda mentals:

Dennett says latter is bogus. We agree (except for our Gospel of Thomas, et al., n¤n classical, quantum aside)! 'Religious' funda mentals as we have shown them above, simply, are unreal.

But "Doug, you've been beating up on Dennett, almost relentlessly, in your critical review of his Breaking the Spell!"

Yes! And n¤wings are n¤ timings to waver, to falter!

Let's just say it! Quantum~evolution is unending, heterogeneous~massively quantum~coherent~ensemble, heterolithic, heterophasic, heteroholographic quantum~processings!

Neither 'scientific,' n¤r 'religious' funda mentals as we have listed them above can explain, "unending, heterogeneous, heterophasic quantum~process." Let's look at a graphic for a Classical Religious Reality model:

Graphic 1 - Ideal Classical Fundamentalist Religion Modeled as a Dialectical-Dualism of Ideal 'State,' and Ideal 'Event.'
See Doug's CeodE 2013 QELR of antinomialism. Doug - 4May2013.

That model of 'Religious Reality' is what Clifford Geertz meant by: "absolutism removes judgment from history." Implication? An innate and arrogant religious assumption that one judgment, religious judgment, fits all! Notice too that this is what Henri Louis Bergson meant by his "duration with extension," in Topic 30 of his Creative Evolution. Browser search there for <duration with extension>. Please read all of those two pages if you decide to go to that link. Doug - 7Mar2007.

Classical dialectical religion cannot explain 'event' other than, as a 'state' transition, a transition from one 'state' to the other 'state.'

Notice one divine creation 'event.' One creation OSFA 'state.' (If you have to ask "Whose OSFA?" you are "irreligious.") One discreation "second-coming" 'event.'

Notice two! Creation or 'not' creation. Alpha or omega. Alive or dead. Saved in 'heaven' or 'sent to hell.' Notice one! God. Right way to thingk. Opposite. And Mel Gibson says, if you are not a Catholic you go to hell, regardless. Muslims say if you are not Muslim you go to hell period. Why? You are opposite, i.e., "Satanic."

Quantum aside:

But look at what 'catholicism' has done. Look at what Islam has done. Now who is satanic? Only a dialectician could call an 'opposite' of Islam or an 'opposite' of 'catholicism' "Satanic." If you study this carefully, you will commence an understanding that if any way of thingking claims 'other' and 'all other' is "satanic," it is dialectic! Smith calls religion "unscientific." He is a dialectician! Marx and Dennett call religion a (mind-opiated) "spell" while arrogantly claiming their way of thingking is capable of assessing other while apparently incapable of assessing their own belief as "a spell." Their 'opiate' is dialectic! See Carlo Suares' Eight Propositions and his meme of 'Two Satans.' A pristine exemplar of quantum~Qabalic antinomialism. Doug - 4May2013.

We are all quantons(all_other,us)! Our quantum~complements (antinomialq~interrelationshipingsq) uniquely make us! That is how all of us, like a phase~encoding fuzzon in a hologram, are both unique and both quantum coherent and quantum autonomous.

Both religion and science are quantum hermeneutic, n¤t classically dialectical. Learn to view both Jesus and Mohammed as quantum. Learn to view both science and religion as quantum. N¤ thinking human being can respect what dialectical opposition is doing to religion and science and humanity at Millennium III's commencement. Buddha probably would agree. Gandhi would agree! We hope Mohammed would agree. We are confident Gn¤stic Jesus would agree. Rosa Parks would agree. Josephine Baker would agree. Martin Luther King would agree. Dump dialectic! Dump hatred! Dump Satan! Doug - 26Feb2006.

Oversimply: either-or is a failure of human thought. Both~while~and is an evident and demonstrable r~evolutionary improvement: better!

It isn't easy... We're only human...

End quantum aside.

So fundamental religious thingking is dialectical. And that is why Smith, Dennett and Renselle, et al., only partially agree that fundamentalist religion is "unscientific" "a spell" "an (Marxian) opiate of mind." N¤t because religion is religious and religious people believe subjectively, n¤t because science is scientific and scientists believe objectively, rather both classical science and classical religion use mind-endumbing dialectic to do their thingking.

That kind of thingking spawns classical negation, AKA ideal mechanical opposition. Ideal Satanic hatred. Opposite(mind, body). Opposite(individual, society). Opposite(religion, science). It spawns Aristotle's "excluded-middle." It spawns ideal mechanical objective separation. It spawns ideal monistic, immutable, OSFA 'state.' Latter is, from a classical religious fundamental view, an ideal opposite of evolution which explains why tiny-minded "helpless" innocents find it so easy to grasp and believe evolution is dialectically wrong. That is how Romaninanity exploited tiny minded helpless innocents to Satanic advantage! What tiny minded helpless innocents do not grasp is that what they have been carefully taught to believe is worse than believing in evolution. Evolution is vaster than classical OSFA 'event-state' religious dialectic can grasp. Bergson warned us! Dialecticians view mechanicity as simple and change as complex: a classical dialectical delusion. Rather, Bergson shows, flux (change) is simple and 'state' is complex.

An easier way for you to think about this: what is more — "by direct experience" — obvious about reality? Change? Ideal absence of change? See! It's simple! Change is flux. Ideal absence of change is 'state.' Classical science and religion induce Babelian complexity trying to exegetize reality using 'state,' and inexplicable 'events.' Quantum science and religion admit that reality is unending, relentless absolute flux, entirely absent classical notions of 'state' and 'event.' In place of classical 'state' quantum science substitutes QVP, quantum variable persistence. In place of 'event' quantum science substitutes quantum (up to and including) Planck rate quantum~pr¤cess. From 'state' to persistency. From 'event' to process. Simple! Flux is simple! Doug - 1Mar2006.

Aside - 21Jun2006 - Doug:

Doug is preparing his next research review increment of Bohm's 1986 dialogue, 'The Super Implicate Order,' a dialogue Bohm had with Renée Weber. We highly recommend this dialogue to our readers and students. See Lee Nichol's The Essential David Bohm, 2003-4, Routledge, Chapter 4. We want to share a segment of that dialogue on their comments about 'event.' They have just finished concluding that 'points' are not real, but lines are real. A quantum interpretation, one which they appear to be using, is that their notion of line here is one of quantum~nonlocality. Analogously, then, 'point' is ideal classical locality, and they are concluding, correctly we believe, that classical locality does not 'exist' in quantum reality. Let's pick up their dialogue from there...

"Weber: ...Taking what we call events as the points.

"Bohm: Yes, events are like the points.

"Weber: But if you don't allow time to be measured by the events, the line then...

"Bohm: Then its a flowing movement, right?

"Weber: Well then in a way it's silence.

"Bohm: It's just flow. If you look at nature and just say, there's no event in nature, really, then it's just flowing. It's the mind that abstracts and puts an event in there."

Here, Bohm's flow is Quantonics' flux.

What is really amazing about this dialogue though is, Bohm using Einsteinian relativity, says "reality stops at light speed." Ugh! Bohm is, like nearly all classicists, caught up in a 3D1T Einsteinian objective model. But...Bohm somehow intuits real flow of his implicate order even though he claims his explicate order is "stopped." Double Ugh-Ugh! Watch for our imminent review of this dialogue.


End 21Jun2006 aside.

Why do classical science and religion insist on using 'state' and 'event' ontologies for reality? Dialectic! Dialectic insists that reality is a material substance and thus objective. To make reality objective science and religion have to reify reality as "holds still" measurable propertyesque. To measure reality we have to stop it. Stoppability evokes 'state.' State transition evokes 'event.' Zeno of Elea was laughing at this tiny minded "helpless innocence" via his tortoise and hare race. Gives n¤vel semantic head to "Laughter of Gods has n¤ object," doesn't it? Read Hesse's Steppenwolf. Read Goethe. Read William James Sidis. Read Sam Rosenberg. Read, perhaps best of all, Essene Gnostic Jesus' The Second Discourse of Great Seth:

"The death they think I suffered they suffered in their Error and blindness.
They nailed their man to their death.
Their thoughts did not perceive me, since they were deaf and blind.
By doing these things they pronounce judgment against themselves.
As for me, they saw me and punished me, but someone else, their father, drank the gall and the vinegar, it was not I.
They were striking me with a scourge, but someone else, Simon, bore the cross on his shoulder.
Someone else bore the crown of thorns.
And I was on high, poking fun at all the excesses, of the Rulers and the fruit of their Error and conceit.
I was laughing at their ignorance."

Doug's bold red of Error.

Translated interpretation by Marvin Meyer, The Gnostic Discoveries, p. 197, 2005, hardbound. This is a very rich and modern hermeneutic.

See others' hermeneutics, too...

"...I (suffered) according to their sight and thought, in order that they may never find any word to speak about them.
For my death which they think happened, (happened) to them in their Error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death.
For their Ennoias {Fables, mythos, emersos...} did not see me, for they were deaf and blind.
But in doing these things, they condemn themselves.
Yes, they saw me; they punished me.
It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I.
They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon {proto~gn¤stic son of G¤d}, who bore the cross on his shoulder.
I was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns.
But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their Error, of their empty glory.
And I was laughing at their ignorance."

Doug's bold red of Error.

Doug's braces holding 'Fables,' and 'proto~gn¤stic son of G¤d.' Archons are demiurge's (the dead-father's) male angels.

Translated interpretation by Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons, The Nag Hammadi Library, p. 365, 1978-1988+1990, paperbound. Less modern, likely closer to ancient semantics. Doug is fascinated by quantum~gnosis here in, "I was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns." Visualize quanton(I,another). Fathom that as a quantum~hologram of quanton(isoflux, flux).

Multiple Sources,,,see also The Gnostic Library,,,
under same title (Meyer used Discourse; NHL used Treatise).

From Doug's perspective 'christians' are objective-literalists. They (Jesus' use of 'their') practice dialectic and speak, thingk and listen in dichons. They wors(e)ship their reverse-engineered Pauline anti-gnostic-jesus which is their Roman 'christ.' Their father is dead. They lie! They are liars! They call Jesus "Christ." They lie! They are dead! They gradually commit their own genocide of hylic self. Goodbye suicidal 'christians.' Goodbye sui cidal generis! Goodbye auto cidal generis! Goodbye liars. Goodbye Satan wors(e)shipers.

Living Father's Essene Gnostic Jesus is Alive ihn all who learn a new way of fathoming Mother Depths, listening and seeing, A New Way of Thinkqing.

Doug - 4Jan2009.

Classical funda mentalist religious assumption: Nothing evolves, there is no evolution. "State is simple!"

We believe that subsequent graphics and discussions will show you why a religious model of viewing reality, like Doug's graphic model above, is called "monistic, dualistic, naïve localism and naïve realism." Fundamental religious reality is a philosophical monism (one God, our God, who does 'not' roll dice, who certainly does not laugh, who brings a sword not peace, offers Babelian towers of absolutes - especially nonevolutionary determinism and certainty) which manufactures a philosophical dualism (EOOO(the_right, the_wrong), dichon(the_right, the_wrong), dichon(the_heaven, the_hell), etc.) based upon dialectical logic. (What would Betelgeusians say about that? Rigelians, Alpha Centaurians?) Fundamental religionists know and consider themselves privileged via divine approval to tell you and us what the way to thingk religiously is. We see it in middle eastern countries today. We see it GW Bu()sh()'s evangelical fundamentalisms. It is dialectic's either-or spawn, inelegant and IQ-putrid.

Similarly, let's look at a graphic for a Classical Scientific Reality model:

Graphic 2 - Ideal Classical Fundamentalist Science Modeled as a Monotemporal 'Process' Pluralism of Ideal 'States,' and Ideal 'Events.'

"Oh no! Doug! Are you saying Classical Fundamentalist Dialectical Science is just a whole bunch of Classical Fundamentalist Dialectical Religious 'states-events' sequenced?"

Well, we can see how you might arrive at that conclusion by looking at our graphic. We respond, "That is a way of viewing our graphic."

Where dialectical religion offers only two 'events,' and two 'states,' classical dialectical 'science' unitemporally offers many (unlimited) 'states' and 'events.' A move from dualism to pluralism is amply evident here. And a troglodytic hint of flux is apparent also. But notice Zeno's graphic criticism of zero-latency events interspersed with ideally stopped 'states,' and allow us to quote ourselves from Doug's review of Bergson's Creative Evolution, Topic 40, p. 310:

Figure 1 - Zeno's Stoppability Modeled as Alterations of Stop Thence Unlimited Acceleration Thence Stop...

"Were Zeno's arrow to stop as classical analyticity insists it must, we see that it would have to accelerate, at an almost unlimited rate, to restore an illusion of continuous motion. As Bergson declares, "This is absurd." But this is what classical science and mathematics do. Classicism calls quantum reality "absurd." Actually, classicism is absurd. Classicism is a fool calling quantum reality a "fool." (We depict classical stoppability as an analytical, instantaneous discontinuity; We depict restartability as a nearly infinite rate analogue continuity.) Be aware that if classicism denies what we have shown, then it has to deny its use of classical 'state,' AKA "zero momentum." Zeno's stoppability is classicism's only means of achieving position's 'state.' See Aristotle's Apple.
Doug - 28Jan2003.

"See too, our more recent A Quantum Pendulum and ponder classicists' misperceptions of stoppability [i.e., ideal classical 'state,' ideal reference frame "zero momentum"] there.
Doug - 20Nov2003; rev - 26Feb2006."

Ideal dialectical religion offers no change, only unending ('till second-coming) utopian immutability. If you buy into that bogus bilge you understand why evolution cannot even be on your intellectual mensa. In that situation, and (perhaps) only in Doug's view, your mensa might as well be tabula rasa...

Classical dialectical science allows for change, but only via 'state-event' multiplicities. Like a movie (cinematograph). Too classical dialectical science requires, just like religion, dialectic analysis and synthesis of notions including 'state(s) and event(s).'

Please carefully study our 'scientific' model graphic's bullet list in light of those last few sentences.

Graphic 3 - Ideal Classical Fundamentalist Science and Religion Mapping of Quantum Flux onto Ideal 'States.' A Digital Reality. A Dialectical Reality!

Graphic 3 shows us that quantum~reality is n¤t classically, dialectically, causally either on or off, rather is always changing and changing all. Classicists, regardless how hard they try will nævær turn quantum reality off. N¤r can they turn quantum reality into dialectical 'states and 'events' if they want to be describing animate and endlessly fluxing quantum reality. Light is quantum flux. Electrons are quantum flux. Nuclei are quantum flux. All ensembles of photons, electrons and nucleons are quantum flux! Reality issi quantum flux!!! Perpetual quantum flux! Yes, we said, intend, demand, mandate quantum flux as perpetual. See Doug's QELR of perpetual motion.

Classical 'science' similar classical religion cannot explain 'events' other than as 'state' transitions, transitions from one 'state' to another 'state.' [Reminder to Doug: Add link to reference here to electron orbital change whose process 'science' yet has no means to 'describe.' Here it is:]

Allow us to quote Arthur I. Miller's 1994 Early QED - 'A Source Book,' "Although suitably quantized laws of classical mechanics are used to calculate [an] electron's allowed orbits, or stationary states, classical mechanics can neither depict nor describe [an] electron in transit." P. 4.

Observe how 'science' carries classical dialectical fundamental religions' determinism into 'events-states' multiplicities. Event-state formal 'interactions' (inter and action beg an Aristotelian excluded-middle thence a classical notion of mechanical 'force' as 'objective' inter-action...can't get much more bogus than that now, can 'science?') are cause-effective based upon prior 'event-state' histories. We call this "classical determinism." It evokes classical delusions of:

This is Dennett's 'scientific' reality.

It is Scott C. Smith's reality.

Using that reality model, both of those Ph.D.s call religion "a spell," and "unscientific." Again, we agree!

Classical scientific assumption: evolution exists, but evolution is determinate and that which evolves has no role in its own evolution, since its evolution is other-directed. Nature state-ically, objectively, dialectically, formally selects!

There is something better, though. A better way of thinking which disavows both religions' and sciences' dialectical fundamentalisms!

What we refer as better finds its foundations in quantum reality and Pirsig's, Bergson's, James', Bohm's, Mae-wan Ho's, Bohr's, partially Dirac's, d'Espagnat's, partially Geertz', Talbot's, both Pagels', partially Durant's, partially Voltaire's, partially Zeno's, partially Heraclitus', and countless others whom we have yet to study...

That better is quantum, it is MoQesque, and in your favor it is Quantonic!

Let's look at Doug's graphic quantum~m¤dal of it:

Graphic 4 - Quantonic Quantum Science M¤daled as heterogeneous, Heterophasic, Heterolithic Holographic Quantum Fluxings' Quantum~Interrelationshipings.

O'gadon, do you see two double helices? Good for you! Quanton(46,46)! What is that, O'gadon? How does it quantum~entangle our discussion here?

Now O'gadon ponder "phlux mux issi dux." - Doug - 2May2006.

Quantum scientific assumption: evolution exists, perhaps less obviously evolution is reality, even bættær, quantum æv¤luti¤n issi ræhlihty, and quantum~evolution is QLOistic (in our example above, our QLO would have at least four peaqlos in it) and that which evolves has agency in its own evolution, and its evolution is both self while and other-directed. Nature and all which is evolving co-select all evolutionary processes. How? Flux dynamically REIMAR interrelates flux. Quantum~evolution is quantum~uncertain, classically indeterminate.

What that shows is important in this review, since one of Dennett's self-revered approaches involves planning. Our Graphic 4 and our bold paragraph show how classical formal planning, absent acknowledgement of real macroscopic quantum~uncertainty, is simply inept: a bogus classical notion based in formal, mechanical, dialectical analytics. Planning carries a tenor of formal determinacy. Quantum evolution offers none. We can and do influence outcomes, and shorter term (like weather prediction) is easier. Longer term (like Feigenbaum's differential equations when he restarted his weather model; see Gleick's Chaos, and relevantly, on types and phasicityings of equilibria, Prigogine and Stengers' Order Out of Chaos) is n¤t generally possible even though cosmic body ephemera inertials make it appear (an classical apparition) so. When classical plans fail, classicists usually blame "Murphy." Actually, it's quantum reality at work, evolving our plans in ways we never anticipated or expected: Columbia, Challenger, Shoemaker-Levi, December 2004 tsunami, Bu()sh()'s War on Iraq, Krakatoa, asteroids, plane crashes, automobile accidents, and so on... Evolution is quantum~uncertain. Quantum~uncertainty issi quanton(macroscopic,microscopic). See quanton. See pastings, nowings, futurings.

Mayhaps we should cease classical 'planning,' and commence quantum 'plausing.' (Just imagine where USA might be now had Bu()sh() and his hatchetmen been cajoled and coerced by Democrats and Congress into 'plausing' vis-à-vis dialectical OSFA 'planning?' )

Dennett writes that religionists just do not want to be judged by science! He tells us that those who won't listen to his bright scientific rationale are "errant." He does this in a neat way by calling them "inerrantists." Religionists believe that their belief is above any scientific, any other, judgment. For being errant in their self-proclaimed inerrancy Dennett wants to just take them out of his scientific methods of judgment. Don't allow them to play in his 'game.' On page 62 his 'reasoning' goes like this:

Dennett's page 62 BtS text,
thelogos and other dialectics in bold violet.

Doug's religious chiral mirroring of Dennett's 'scientific' text,
minus thelogos — paraphrased as needed.

Doug's bold, bold violet, bold dark red (~quantum c¤mplementary mirror words), and brackets.
Our quantum~mirroring of some of Dennett's words to partially c¤mplement Dennett's original text.
"But isn't there an unjustified asymmetry here, with me refusing to defend my [scientific] anticreationism here and now, while sending the biblical inerrantist off for not playing by the rules of rational discussion? No, because I [scientist] have directed everyone to the literature that defends the dismissal of creationism against all objections, whereas the [biblical] inerrantist is refusing to take on even that obligation. To be symmetrical, the [biblical] inerrantist should encourage me to consult the literature, if it exists, that purports to demonstrate, against all objections, that the Bible is indeed the Word of God and that it rules out evolution. I [a scientist-philosopher] haven't yet been directed to any such literature, and haven't found it on any Web site, but if it exists, it would indeed warrant consideration as a topic for another day and another project — just like creationism and its critics. Those readers who remain will not demand any further consideration by me of creationism and its variants, since I [a scientist-philosopher] have told them where to find the answers I [scientists and philosophers] endorse, for better or for worse. End of Digression." "But isn't there an unjustified asymmetry here, with religionists refusing to defend their antiscientism here and now, while sending a scientific inerrantist off for not playing by rules of spiritual discussion? No, because religionists have directed everyone to literature that defends the dismissal of scientism against all objections, whereas some scientific inerrantist is refusing to take on even that obligation. To be symmetrical, any scientific inerrantist should encourage religionists to consult scientific literature, if it exists, that purports to demonstrate, against all objections, that science's opus is indeed only one of many dialectical Spells of Truth, mental opiates if you will, and that it rules out creation. Religionists haven't yet been directed to any such literature, and haven't found it on any Web site, but if it exists, it would indeed warrant consideration as a topic for another day and another sermon — just like godless scientific evolutionism and its critics. Those readers who remain will not demand any further consideration by religionists of evolution and its variants, since religionists have told them where to find answers religionists endorse, for better or for worse. End of Digression."

Dennett says either religionists play in his sand box or he is done with them... Then why in hell is he writing this book?

Let's ask a, what we perhaps arrogantly view as a, cogent question: "What if God didn't create reality, rather G¤d created evolution?" Think of our query as kin of Gödel's metameme of provability metamemetically above proof. Evolution metamemetically above creation. To us this is quintessence of what Gn¤stics meant by Essene.

Above we jibe science's view of religion's "rules out evolution," vis-à-vis religion's view of science's "rules out [religious] creation."

It's actually amazing that both science (big bang) and religion (divine creation) believe in creatio ex nihilo aperio. Science says evolution 'caused' big bang and subsequent (only y=f(t) motional via immobile 'state' transition; objective reality is, other than classical motion, concrete) changes since then. Religion says God created our universe one time and it has remained dialectically concrete since then. Both of them would say, "Rocks absolutely do 'not' evolve! And they certainly do 'not' self-evolve." Quantum science says all evolves and n¤t just y=f(t) state-ic motionally by immobility.

But, quantumly, evolution is creation! If we could get science and religion to agree on that then ruling out 'either' rules out its quantum~co-metaphor. Trouble is, 'either' is dialectical, isn't it. Quantumly evolution is ihn creation and creation is ihn evolution. N¤t EOOO, rather BAWAM! Quanton(evolution,creation), n¤t dichon(evolution, creation)!

Science claims to know truth. Does it? If science's truth finds its bases in dialectic, we can answer simply, science cann¤t know truth! Why? Dialectic does n¤t lead to absolute truth! Dialectic only leads to local agreement borne of supposition and a complicit tragedy of commons sense. Nearly all of Dennett's references and literature find their language, logic, and reasoning wholly dialectical: simply bogus!

But religionists, mostly, use dialectic too...

All of Dennett's endorsements are rationally, reasonably dialectical. To follow Dennett's lead isn't better, it's worse. To follow any dialectician's lead is worse. Doug - 2Mar2006.

Dennett is classically and apparently irretrievably stuck in SOM's box.

Dennett continues, on page 62, by declaring an old and worn tragedy of commons sense cliché, "...there is 'no' free lunch." What a black hearted abomination. Biology, as any real quantum~scientific biologist will tell you is a host of both zero- and negentropy processes! In a quantum~real sense, "life itself is free!" Soon, during Millennium III, quantum~science will show that energy is quintessentially free, regardless whether dialectical 'scientists' and envirnomentalists like it. Read Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm and examine its bibliography for more reading.

Too he clearly views dead-end determinisms which somehow in his view arise out of evolution as "accidents." But evolution isn't deterministic 'chance,' it is PNFings selective chance borne of quantum~choosings. PNFings weigh a posteriorai, a iamai, and a priorai quantum process ensemblings with lessor weightings on pastings, most weightings on nowings, and only expectant weightings on futurings. Again quantum reality, unlike dialectical classical reality, is in increasing evolutionary process selection weightings probabilistic, thence plausibilistic, thence likelihoodistic. That's how quantum~evolution chooses. So really there are 'no' classical accidents! Only comparatively quanton(better,worse) choosings, chancings, and changings. Natural evolution eventually selection~evolves better. What is happening here right now is an example. Quantonics is showing how dialectic, which was selected evolutionarily, is dying and being replaced by Quantum Thinking Modes, which are demonstrably better. Approach?: juxtapose classical and quantum.

Dennett spends balance of Section 2, Cui bono, talking about money, language and music as "cultural inventions." 'No' individual human can be identified as their inventors so "culture must have done it?" Our bet is that some human whistled before culture did, and that some human made linguistic proemial marks before some culture did, etc.

Dennett apparently is attempting to monetize religion. But during Millennium III, if energy becomes essentially free, money will lose much of its, no pun, value?!

Let's move on to Section 3 - Asking what pays for religion -

Personally, for Doug, religion is a totally individual (i.e., quantum~Gn¤stic) process of worshiping an ineffable quantum~c¤mplement of Doug which Doug calls "quantum reality." For Doug, quantum~reality's (realities') interrelationshipings quantum~ontologically (ontocoquecigruecally), and with Doug's own quantum~l¤cal QLOistic affectorings, shape and evolve and devolve Doug. Most of those interrelationshipings are beyond Doug's own and his culturally assisted sensory bandwidth. From about 1021 to 1043 Planck rate and subharmonic fluxings Doug has n¤ sensory qua. Doug's qua is only about 1 part in 1021-22 of quantum~reality. To Doug, his part is effable. To Doug much of that vaster quantum~unknown is demonstrably ineffable. To call some religionists spiritual kindreds, Doug refers that vaster ineffableness "G¤d." It is also n¤nactuality, DQ, quantum~vacuum~flux, and so on... So, Doug believes himself issi quanton(Ineffable,effable) and further, Doug issi ihn It and It issi ihn Doug, a quantum real included~middle of both all Ineffable while and many effables. That included~middle is what allows Doug to partially describe, by partially tapping into, his own Ineffable quantum~c¤mplement (assuming we quantum~c¤herently share all reality's (including your) Ineffable c¤mplement too).

Reading Dennett makes us believe that he believes his 1 part is all there is. Very sad... Worse, just like GW Bu()sh() and his neocon-fascist-evangelical and 'catholic' hatchets, he wants to impose his 1 part 'science' on religion and everyone else: OSFA. Ughly!

Get this, get Doug's quantum~martus: Doug loves quantum~science while almost totally disrespecting classical dialectical science. Doug loves quantum~religion while almost totally disrespecting classical dialectical religion.

Compare that to Dennett who wants to shove his version of 'science' down religionists' throats. Demagogue! Polemicist! Putrescent pundit. 'Scientific' fascist! Boris Sidis would say "pseudagogue." See Boris' Philistine and Genius.

On page 69 Dennett says religion is a hugely costly endeavor. So is science! Dialectic is more costly than both: it has ruined our minds, languages, philosophies, metaphysics, logics, epistemologies, anthropologies, 'hard' — meaning dialectical sciences, and worst of all our culture, especially Western culture. That cost is immeasurable in lives lost and futures lost.

Religion is a pittance compared, costwise, to dialectic. But 'science' starting with that SOMwit Parmenides, thence SOMwits Plato and Aristotle has been the vector of dialectic in Western culture (although we see hints of it in Eastern religions and cultures).

If you want to talk about costs, there is where to start making valuable, Coveyesque, deposits. Doug's opinions.

Now, back off Doug... Which is more valuable in terms of its long term evolutionary stability? Science's own noble admission of its own provisionality opens doors for change. Religions which close doors and allow 'no' self and other evaluation closes doors in failing attempts at state-ic perpetuity. Doug really believes that post modern science will eventually catch its own metastatic quantum viral memes re: quantum coquecigrues issues in reality and adapt to them. Doug doubts, however, that early Millennium III, especially Western, Christian religions and Middle-Eastern Islamic religions can survive. They simply refuse to adapt, to change and insist, like Dennett, that in their ESQ refusal to change: "status quo is the way to go." Religionists are yelling "semper fi," when they should be mantra-ing "semper fluxio."

Gandhi said , we should "...attempt to become the change we seek." Amen! Semper fluxio!

Mankind cann¤t accomplish that by locally-intellectually-rationally-reasonably, perhaps literally, killing all those who disagree (omnisagree). We can see, that is how Dennett chooses to proceed...locally-intellectually-rationally-reasonably... In our view, Nature will n¤t permit that. Nature n¤t only loves to hide s-he loves beau coup omniversity. Nature's morals are omniverse (vis-à-vis 'di' verse), he-r ethics are omniverse, and so on... Nature simply denies and decries human attempts at controlling he-r. Too, Nature is our partner not our hegemon. Science and Religion want status above nature and above human individuals as controlling hegemons. That's what their fight is about. Two kids in a sand box fighting over toys. Nature laughs...laughter of G¤ds without an object...

Here is an interesting quote from page 72, "Now that we have created the technologies to cause global catastrophe, our jeopardy is multiplied to the maximum: a toxic religious mania could end human civilization over night." Very interesting. Very deflecting. This is abominable!

Dennett should have said, "Now that science has created the technologies to cause global catastrophe..." Had he done that, he never would have finished nor written that sentence. This reads very much like Maritain on Bergson. It has nothing scientific about it. It is a political diatribe! And why "toxic religious?" What about "toxic political?" What about "toxic scientific?" What about "toxic national?" What about "toxic terrorist?" What about "toxic dialectic?"

"Now that we have created the technologies to cause global catastrophe, our jeopardy is multiplied to the maximum: a toxic mania could end human civilization over night." Very imaginative! Wow!

We are saying that what Dennett is saying about religion can be said just as dialectically about almost any classical notion.


On to...

Section 4 - A Martian's list of theories -

Here is another brain bender on page 75, "Ludwig Wittgenstein famously said that explanation has to stop somewhere, but this undeniable truth misleads us if it discourages us from asking such questions, prematurely terminating our curiosity."

Is that truth undeniable? Quantum reality shows us that it is fabulously deniable. How? Why? Quantum reality does not stop, cannot stop!

Classical dialectic has taught us a simple 'scientific' delusion: reality is stoppable. Physicists apply this using "reference frames," and "zero momentum." Wrong!

Quantum reality is neither stopped nor stoppable!

See our A Quantum Pendulum, and our Zeno's Stoppability. Study Bergson's Creative Evolution and his Time and Free Will. Also see our QELR of stop.

If a human, even with 'scientific' accoutrement assistance can only see and sense about 1 part in 1021-22 of reality how can we be so deluded that we can say classically absolutely that reality is stopped and stoppable? Dennett says stoppability is undeniable. He says he agrees with Wittgenstein that explanation has to STOP somewhere...

Recall at another extreme that Ockham said that we must strip away all but bare essentials to understand anything. But any 'thing' is a quantum complementation of its apparency and its nonapparency, that other 1021-22 'parts' of reality. Similarly for ...Descartes, Bacon, Hegel, Kant, Newton, and Einstein. SOMwits all...

The rest of this section spends (in our view) wasted prose on a Martian's view of religion as costly. Though we do agree that metaviews are phenomenally more powerful than views, as we have compared before like Gödel's metameme of 'provability' above 'proof.' Very quantum. So we have to congratulate Dennett on that quantum intuition. Just be aware that it applies to science, et al., too. You cannot and should not apply it only to religion else it loses (via dialectic) its metamemetic power. Dialectic kills (zeroes, turns off) h-bar in all metamemetics! Killing h-bar turns reality into ESQ. Killing h-bar kills quantum c¤mplement Ineffable. Killing h-bar kills DQ! Killing h-bar kills G¤d!!! And we call people who kill others in any name of social-cultural patterns of 'value,' "terrorists." Thou shalt n¤t kill! (See USA's religious and scientific hypocrisy in Iraq?) Doug - 3Mar2006.

Well, if we include academe and military applications, a Martian's view of science is even more costly.

We can take Section 4 of this Chapter and do our side by side, similar above. Net outcomes are very similar.

We've enjoyed this chapter immensely!

Hope our and Dennett's readers did too.

Our assessment persists: Dennett's religion is dialectical science, though and yet he does believe in evolution and Dawkinsian memes. Adaptation is underway...

And, Doug thinks that Dennett and Doug agree that fundamental religion of a fascist neocon sort is clearly unworthy of any decent humanity; While Doug demurs in his own view that we do n¤t need and want 'science' to ascertain that.

It appears valuable at this juncture to remind our readers of some Bergsonian, Mae-wan Hoean, Gn¤stic Christian...

(which lends much greater legitimacy to pre Romaninanity Christ; that Gn¤stic Christ knew this over 2000 years ago is simply awesome to makes nearly all of his peers then look classically retarded and explains why they could not understand much of what he said...),

...Quantonic, and quantum~memes of enormous cultural importance. Classical views of society and individual are dialectical: dichon(society, individual) with society objectively and masterly on top and individual as slavishly and subjectively on bottom. Our "called names" quantum~coherently demur that classical conspective. Pirsig's evolutionary SPoV hierarchy does too. Quantonics 2003-2004 Chautauqua does too.

Latter is more highly evolved and evolving... Our memeo of a better description of latter appears in Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm. See her 1993, p. 153, and 1998 , p. 215, editions.

Classical organizations do harm, in general. Classical, et al., individuals suffer extreme losses of individual freedoms under duress of classical organizations, religious, scientific, and otherwise.

Doug believes we need to assiduously prevent dialectical DIQheaded dildos from becoming 'president' of our USA. Any evangelical who adheres neocon fascism is just plain Satanic to our way of thinking.

Our review of Part II of Dennett's Breaking the Spell, starting with Chapter 4, is next...

Thank you for reading,



Return to Chapter Index

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

©Quantonics, Inc., 2006-2023 Rev. 4May2013  PDR Created: 25Feb2006  PDR
(3,10,13Apr2006 rev - 'Multiplicit[]es' to multiplicities, and me[hc]anical to mechanical. Correct name of Gleick's Chaos text. Add 'State is Simple' anchor. Respell Feigenbaum.)
(19Apr2006 rev - Add 'Life-Death Event-State' anchor to Religious model of reality graphic. Repair some minor typos and punctuation displacements.)
(2May2006 rev - Add 'Quantum is Better' anchor.)
(21Jun,8Jul2006 rev - Add 21Jun2006 Bohm-Weber aside. Minor punctuation repairs. Minor punctuation improvement.)
(24Aug2006 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(4Jan2007 rev - Add 'Scientific Event-State' anchor.)
(5Mar2007 rev - Change all misspellings 'heterogeneous.')
(30Apr2007 rev - Remove redundant 'had' from immediately after only use of 'hatchetmen.')
(2Nov2007 rev - Change contact information and hidden HTML header info.)
(18Jan2008 rev - Add word 'process' to title of State is Simple diagram.)
(27Sep2008 rev - Add link to 'A Doug Comment on Rationalism' under "All of Dennett's endorsements are rationally,...")
(9Dec2008 rev - Replace some fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups.)
(4,26Jan2009 rev - Add Jesus' exemplars of "Laughter of Gods." Add 'State Event' anchor.)
(18,24Feb2009 rev - Add 'What is Gnosis?' link. Add links to recent QELR of 'aware.')
(13Sep2009 rev - Add 'Beyond Belief' link to TQS News April, 2007, from 'Life-Death Event-State' graphic.)
(24Mar2010 rev - Repair typo.)
(20Jan2013 rev - Add 'stoppability' anchor near related commentary.)
(4May2013 rev - Update Graphic 1 label and text commentary under it. Reset legacy text markups.)

Return to Review