Run naked around the block? Eat your hat? Wow, do I get to watch? ;-) Sorry it took so long to find your reply. I am a bit of a dabbler, posting stuff all over the place and I don't get notifications about this web site, so I only found it when it turned up in a Google search.
To answer your question: Daniel Dennett is one of my favorite philosophers. He has a truly great mind and has done some fantastic work in the academic world. His writing is aimed at well-educated people, but in spite of that he has gained some popularity in the popular market because his ideas are so fascinating and his explanations are well crafted.
So I'm reluctant to criticize, but ... I think he missed the point in "Breaking the Spell." He does an excellent job laying out the problem in Part I, and in Part III he is masterly at discussing the social implications of religion. But in Part II he gets the answer completely upside down.
The premise of my book, "The Religion Virus," is that religion is a parasitic infection that is a nearly-inevitable side effect of the development of human language. The key here is the word "parasitic."
The mistake Dennett and many others have made is that the argue that somehow the brain has evolved to support religion because it's adaptive. In other words, if religion is beneficial to humans for some reason (regardless of the veracity of its tenets), then the human brain would evolve to make us more and more inclined to believe in gods and such. It's an interesting theory, and on the surface it makes sense.
But let's turn it around. Substitute the word "intestinal parasite" for "religion" and see how quickly the argument falls apart. Tapeworms, pinworms, and other disgusting creatures are found just about everywhere in the world, and without treatment almost everyone would be infected by one or more of these creatures. You could argue that somehow they must be beneficial. If you look at our biology and theirs, it's one of those "perfect fits," and it would be easy to argue that the human body had evolved to accommodate them, so they must be GOOD for us!
What's even more amazing is that we've been living with these nasty creatures for so long that our bodies have "overreacted" genetically, so that now some humans suffer from inflammation of the bowels when they are cured of these parasites! Without them, we get sick. Some researchers even suggest that severe cases of inflammatory bowel syndrome should be treated by deliberately infecting the patient with an intestinal worm ... and it actually works.
But does anyone think that these parasites are good for us? No. We haven't evolved to support them; it's the other way around. They have adapted to our bodies because it benefits THEM.
So what Dennett and others are suggesting, that somehow religion is adaptive, is mixing up cause and effect. The Religion Virus has adapted to US, not the other way around.