Casey Luskin reviewed Richard Dawkins's new children's science book, The Magic of Reality over at Evolution News and Views. Here's a brief summary excerpt:
What do you get when the world's most influential atheist teams up with a tarot card illustrator to write a book for younger readers? Well, apparently you get a book that accepts scientism on faith, mocks religion, and is full of occult-like imagery. Welcome to Richard Dawkins's latest salvo, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True.
The stated purpose of The Magic of Reality is to help kids understand both the content and nature of scientific knowledge. The real purpose is to get them to disbelieve in anything supernatural and to associate traditional religious beliefs with wacky superstitions that few have even heard of. Oh yes, you're also supposed to learn to mock those who disagree with you as "dishonest" and "lying"….
Dawkins's message is this: All supernatural claims are superstitions. And all superstitions are explained by science. Except for those that aren't. But we have faith that they will be. And if you don't share my faith, you're lazy and dishonest. This is the new-atheist message in a nutshell.
Read the full review to hear more about Dawkins's arguments against miracles and for common ancestry, including some quotes like this one:
We are all cousins. Your family tree includes not just obvious cousins like chimpanzees and monkeys but also mice, buffaloes, iguanas, wallabies, snails, dandelions, golden eagles, mushrooms, whales, wombats, and bacteria. All are our cousins. Every last one of them. Isn't that a far more wonderful thought than any myth? And the most wonderful of all is that we know for certain it is literally true. (p. 52)
Why is it that evangelical apologists are allergic to the theory of evolution? Its interesting that it is this part of the book Amy quotes from, and not a section focusing on the supposed scientism. As if showing other evangelicals that the book pushes evolution is sufficient to classify it as bunk.
Posted by: Leonhard | December 21, 2011 at 03:55 AM
When some event happens, what features does that event have to have to warrant claims that it had some supernatural element or cause?
Posted by: Loki | December 21, 2011 at 04:00 AM
Dawkins is a barefaced liar when he says evolution is a literal fact, 150 years after Darwin these fanatical atheists (lets not even honour them by their pretending to be so-called scientists and hiding their religion behind "science") are still no closer to proving their religious and philosophical assumptions regarding Evolution.
Posted by: Andrew | December 21, 2011 at 05:30 AM
There is no event that a naturalist will not seek a rational answer for. The main problem with this is not the looking by why they are looking. If you are looking to disprove a God then I think they will forever be looking. If you are looking to find out how God does it well you will forever be looking as well except that instead of being embittered by what you find your going to be filled with a sense of awe and wonder. Imagine that for an eternity. I can see why Dawkins in his old age sitting on a rocking chair on his porch screaming at the Christians that wonder by. In almost every picture I see of him I don't see a smile. That might be the slant of the people I read but that is the way I picture all people who don't have hope past what they see in this world.
Posted by: Bill West | December 21, 2011 at 05:37 AM
And how they ignore the real magic, matter/energy created out of nothing, a subject they steer well clear of as they cannot explain it, unless they babble on about a "singularity" and "big bangs" which explain nothing and are fairy tales for grown ups to cover up their embarassing assumptions in a pathetic attempt to maintain the slightest ounce of credibility.
Posted by: Andrew | December 21, 2011 at 05:40 AM
I represent chimpanzees and monkeys but also mice, buffaloes, iguanas, wallabies, snails, dandelions, golden eagles, mushrooms, whales, wombats, and bacteria.
Especially the wombats. And they are all offended to be classified as Dawkin's cousins.
Oh and I'll be having some of Dawkin's cousins for dinner tonight. Mushrooms ... yumm
Rom 1:22,23: Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man, birds, animal and "creepy" things.
Once again, Dawkins exemplifies the truth of Scripture.
Glory be to God in the highest.
Posted by: kpolo | December 21, 2011 at 07:41 AM
Andrew
So people that believe that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the biodiversity observed on earth are automatically atheists? You do realise that means you are claiming the Pope and The Archbishop of Cantebury are atheists?
Get it straight. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in diety(ies). Evolution is about biodiversity. They are very different things and dont say anything about one another. In fact atheism doesnt say anything AT ALL - it just says that atheists dont buy the theist stuff you are peddling.
And please steer away from Physics.
In fact I think you are a poe.
Posted by: Loki | December 21, 2011 at 07:47 AM
Not all evolutionists are Athiests. I have a few friends that believe that evolution is the way God created the world and I would not call them Athiests. I would call them inconsistent and I have. We have long discussions about why they are wrong and I am right. An athiest on the other had has to accept evolution. There is no other answer, no other explanation. This is where the frustration for them will come into play. They will forever search for the explanation and what they will forever find is more questions. This is based on evidence. In no case in any scientific endeavor throughout the history of scietific inquiry has anyone come across the answer to it all. Everytime they get close enough to where they think they have the answer something else shows up on the microscope or in the field of the particle accelerator that they can't explain. So they will spend billions and trillions more dollars to find the answer for the new thing and what will they find. More questions. An infinitely more complex world than we could have ever imagined has popped up in our searches over the past millenia and even more complex over the past few decades. What about this trend will change? At what point does the scientist look at the complexity of what they see and say...umm this could not have come about by chance? Will the next decade bring obout the final answer to it all or will it be as I predict another decade of looking?
Posted by: Bill West | December 21, 2011 at 08:36 AM
Suspect Luskin from the first line.
The illustrator has also worked on Tarot cards.
So what?
Read the book. Failing that, take a look at it. Failing that, at least read a friendly review to balance Luskin's predictable view.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 21, 2011 at 09:07 AM
Ron, he mentions it because of the occult imagery in the book. Or are you saying the book doesn't make use of occult imagery? That can be easily determined. If Luskin made up the images he sites in his review, I would want to know. Are you saying you have the book, and those images aren't there? (Or did you read the whole review?)
Posted by: Amy | December 21, 2011 at 09:31 AM
RonH,
You suspect Luskin long before he writes a single line.
You do not handle evidence well and your bias fares no better.
Posted by: Daron | December 21, 2011 at 09:43 AM
You see kids science is true.
Well not true per se but my radomly firing neurons occur by chance in such a sequence it is what I call true but then again my evaluation of my radomly firing sequence is itself a randomly firing sequence so uh err....what are talking about? Oh yeah religious people are stupid. Maybe someday his ideas will evolve.
Posted by: Damian | December 21, 2011 at 09:43 AM
The Magic of Scientism: How False Beliefs about Reality lead to the Truth of Atheism
Posted by: SteveK | December 21, 2011 at 11:14 AM
That book's pics look creepy as hell.
i wouldnt buy it
give me nightmares
Posted by: ToNy | December 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Yeah, I didn't see any creepy pics either, Tony, but maybe they are in there. Creepy pics don't really bother me anyway.
I do see creepy epistemology. Do you see that too?
Posted by: SteveK | December 21, 2011 at 11:53 AM
Hi Amy,
I read the book about a month ago. I borrowed it from our wonderful local public library.
As described here, the book's title comes from one of of three meanings of magic that tie the chapters of the book together: supernatural magic, stage magic, and 'the magic of reality'.
The illustrations I think Luskin must be talking about are some of those that are in the book to illustrate examples of the supernatural meaning of magic.
In the video I linked to you see, for example, Cinderella's Fairy God Mother and an Aztec Sun God.
Are these 'occult-like' images?
If not, which images are?
And, for the images that are 'occult-like' (the book according to Luskin is full of them), what is your problem with them?
Correct me where I get your belief wrong: Some of the occult is real because the Bible says so. For this reason it is wrong to depict the occult as fictional.
I am not clear on whether it is ok to depict magic as fictional provided the Bible doesn't claim that particular magic is real. Maybe this is what Luskin is getting at when he says 'occult-like' rather than simply 'occult'?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 21, 2011 at 02:32 PM
@loki,
I think Dawkins has made the point several times that it is not possible to both understand evolution and not be an atheist.
Posted by: Alex | December 21, 2011 at 04:02 PM
I picked up this book in the bookstore because it looked pretty. I didn't know who the author was at first. I was interested because I think it is very important for Christians to be educated about what the other side believes and be up on current events/publications by people like Dawkins and other people who are so influential in our culture.
But wow, the condescending tone and outright snottiness toward anyone who is religious made it impossible for me to continue!
I don't know anything about his background. I wonder what happened to this man to make him hate God to this degree.
Posted by: Mo | December 21, 2011 at 05:50 PM
Alex,
Can you provide a source for that?
Here Dawkins is asked...
And he answers...RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 21, 2011 at 06:27 PM
Damian,
Where did you get the idea of 'radomly (sic) firing neurons'?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 21, 2011 at 06:32 PM
ron,
like i've mentioned before, we don't have any epistemic grounding.
whether dawkins neurons are random or deterministic, its hard to rationalize his truth claims based on mere physics:
===================================
Consider a system tasked with judging the veracity of its own judgment.
A deterministic system could have a flaw that is self-hiding.
A random system produces correct answers only accidentally.
Thus, neither a deterministic system nor a random system can, with absolute certainty, be sure of its own judgments -- indeed, we can see this is true with absolute certainty.
But if we must either be deterministic or random, then we know with absolute certainty that we can know nothing with absolute certainty - a fatal self-contradiction.
===================================
The christian response to this problem, is to assert that God glued a magic ghost to their neurons -- after their parents had sex. Which indeed may be true and does solve the problem. But inserting a 'deus ex machina' literally solves EVERY problem.
So i'd like to give nuerobiologists and neurophilosophers more time to work on it.
Posted by: ToNy | December 21, 2011 at 07:12 PM
Not quite with equal validity or necessity ToNy. You are hoping to expose some kind of man made scheme by having science rescue you when even your savior self admittedly cannot assure you of anything. It seems a little odd that you'd list some weighty problems with a purely naturalistic [non]-epistemology, and then hope that you'll yield some kind of truth out of a naturalistic discipline. It seems to me that it'd take an all out assault and dismissal of logic to accomplish your desired result, or you could just insert your god in the machine as many do when denying the One true Gods active involvement in everyones life.
It couldn't be as simple as revelation being the authoritative source that has answered the tough questions with internal coherency and the resulting worldview having a comprehensive scope.
Posted by: Brad B | December 21, 2011 at 09:45 PM
No, Tony. The Christian response to the problem is the same one you will get when you follow the logic. The response is that there is more to reality than determined reality and randomly determined reality. Naturalistic reality cannot explain it. There must be more to 'nature'. Supernature. God.
Posted by: SteveK | December 21, 2011 at 10:58 PM
SteveK
No, Steve. They think the soul is glued on at conception and the mind is not privy to materialistic forces.
Posted by: ToNy | December 22, 2011 at 01:17 AM
Brad,
>> "You are hoping to expose some kind of man made scheme by having science rescue"
the whole point of my post was that science has not the answer to this question.
maybe someday they will
i dunno
given that cognitive science has really only been around for a couple decades, i'm willing to give them a few more centuries.
It does bother me that I might not be around to see the data though.
Posted by: ToNy | December 22, 2011 at 01:19 AM
"Oh yes, you're also supposed to learn to mock those who disagree with you as "dishonest" and "lying"…."
I read the book. That is not in there even in the slightest degree.
Posted by: Josh Stewart | December 22, 2011 at 02:09 AM
Hi ToNy,
Your assertion is epistemically possible - it may be true for all I know.
Since your argument does lead to a contradiction I'm interested in how you show that your assertion is logically possible.
Whaddya got?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 22, 2011 at 05:01 AM
ToNy,
By the way, is this argument your own work? If so, cool! If not, where can I read about it?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 22, 2011 at 05:08 AM
"And all superstitions are explained by science. Except for those that aren't. But we have faith that they will be. And if you don't share my faith, you're lazy and dishonest."
This is Faith.
Or, another word for it: Religion.
The only difference between the atheist and his faith and the theist and his faith is that the theist is honest about his faith being faith. The atheist is dishonest. For he calls his faith science while at the same time admitting he has no data to explain the as yet unexplained. It's an odd and dishonest twist of wordsmithing which fools no one. Except little children who read little childrens books.
Oddly, the theist then insists on honesty. As if his naturalism can ground such an ought.
'Oddly' is probably the wrong word. Perhaps 'funny' or 'hilarious' is more fitting!
Posted by: SB | December 22, 2011 at 05:10 AM
Sorry but "oddly the thesit then insists...." should read:
Oddly, the atheist then insists on honesty. As if his naturalism can ground such an ought.
I hever understood the atheists who say "we ought to".
They have no ground upon which to think such and ought "is".
And, of course, here they are again being dishonest. For they first say the ought does not exist in any permanent state, and then they proceed to "charge" the "wrong" of "dishonesty".
And so we find the atheist being not only dishonest about his faith (a belief backed by no data whatsoever; not the Christian's definition of faith, but the atheist's definition), but also being dishonest about the need for honesty, which he really does not believe exists, yet continues to believe exists.
His wordsmithing fools no one. Except little children.
Posted by: SB | December 22, 2011 at 05:24 AM
SB,
Tell us how you really feel.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 22, 2011 at 06:23 AM
Ronh
>> "Since your argument does lead to a contradiction I'm interested in how you show that your assertion is logically possible."
the argument illustrates an inconsistency in materialism
>> By the way, is this argument your own work? If so, cool! If not, where can I read about it?"
my friend emailed it to me in 2001 i think.
But its a common thread in books like "godel escher bach" or Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose.
Posted by: ToNy | December 22, 2011 at 07:01 AM
there was a pretty good summary in the cartoon waking life too
here
Posted by: ToNy | December 22, 2011 at 07:03 AM
Well that's one possibility.
Another possibility is that the argument illustrates an inconsistency in your premise...
It does seem that we have an argument that leads to a contradiction.
This suggests we look for a premise that is not logically possible.
You say, "It's Materialism".
I say, "Not so fast: Show me it's not this other."
The cartoon is great (Thanks for the intro.) but doesn't do your job for you. My sense is: this is a book-length job for someone like Gödel, he has not done it, neither has Penrose nor Hofstadter.
Again, can you show that...
...is logically possible?RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 22, 2011 at 07:59 AM
Ron,
>> "I say, "Not so fast:"
right
like i said above:
"given that cognitive science has really only been around for a couple decades, i'm willing to give them a few more centuries."
so i think its a problem for my side.
And if feel justified in sitting on the fence until more data comes along.
Though i would be sympathetic to those who elected to believe that the answer to the problem was a soul -- especially if they were gonna die soon - cuz pascal's wager always wins.
Posted by: ToNy | December 22, 2011 at 08:08 AM
AGAIN, can you show that...
A deterministic system could have a flaw that is self-hiding.
...is logically possible?
It sounds like grand natural conspiracy theory.
Posted by: RonH | December 22, 2011 at 09:37 AM
Ronh
er...
what part is unclear....
For example, if Ron's neurons are deterministic and Turing machine-reducible, and Ron's brain was running on this chip, then Ron would spout statements all day that were wrong - yet he would not have the wherewithal to ever know it.
Posted by: ToNy | December 22, 2011 at 09:53 AM
ToNy,
I assumed when you said 'self-hiding flaw' you meant a flaw that would remain hidden regardless of what the system learns.
You just mean any old defect?
I take it back then. The whole thing is uninteresting.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 22, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Yes, regardless of what this system learns, it indeed can necessarily never be sure it does not have a flaw.
Posted by: ToNy | December 22, 2011 at 10:35 AM
Josh, I think the review was referring to this comment in Dawkins's section about people making things up and tricking people. He says this after saying the miracles in the Gospels were also made up:
The implication is, supernatural explanations are fraud, trickery, or lies. You might not see how it could be fraud, trickery, or lies, but it is, just like the other examples he gave. And he explicitly says it's "lazy, even dishonest," to believe otherwise.
Posted by: Amy | December 22, 2011 at 11:09 AM
Hi ToNy, your recent post is consistent with mankind or any being/entity that has only itself as its prime referent. In the case of the Christian the biblical revelation becomes the mirror to reflects back to the new creation being, one that has an alien inhabitation that interacts according to reality. I don't have time to develope this fully now, but I think you'll get what I'm saying, namely that Christians are not soley "self referential" regarding knowledge and perception.
So long as the Bible stands, Christians can know sone things with certainty, and because of that deduce other necessary truths with equal certainty.
Posted by: Brad B | December 22, 2011 at 11:49 AM
>> "namely that Christians are not soley "self referential" regarding knowledge"
well its also because they think human thought actually happens in a magical realm - that is not privy to the laws of physics.
so once you assert that thought happens in Oz (and not in neurons), then you need not be worried about such an epistemic challenge.
Posted by: ToNy | December 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM
ToNy,
Dualism posits the mind/soul/spirit as an immaterial entity inextricably interconnected to the brain. For it to become truly disconnected is concurrent with either coma or death.
The interconnection between brain/mind is not as you describe "not privy to the laws of physics." If a car's engine malfunctions, the driver of the car can no longer use the vehicle to go anywhere. So the mind is subject to the laws of physics insofar as it tries to tell the body what to do.
Posted by: Sage S. | December 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Your faith is misplaced here, Tony. In a closed system, what data could possibly be produced from within that system that shows the system is reliable and trustworthy? Answer: none. You even said this yourself.
Posted by: SteveK | December 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM
"The implication is, supernatural explanations are fraud, trickery, or lies."
Amy; under what circumstances is it reasonable to assert that a supernatural event has occurred? How could you tell?
Posted by: Physics | December 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Physics,
Richard Carrier put it this way:
I think it is reasonable to assert that the nonmental isn't causing my mind to reason through a math problem or a syllogism. Using Carrier's criteria, reasoning itself cannot fit within the framework of naturalism.
Posted by: SteveK | December 22, 2011 at 02:53 PM
SteveK
No no. You are answering the wrong question. I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as the supernatural. What I'm asking is if an event occurs, when would it be reasonable to claim there is some supernatural involvement?
Posted by: Physics | December 22, 2011 at 03:05 PM
Just so I'm being clear; science assumes naturalism (the idea that the world is orderly, measurable, observable) and so it can only ever find evidence of these type of phenomena, but most concepts of god are defined to fall outside the natural world.
We reject the god hypothesis (a la Laplace) in science because it's not useful to us - we have more parsimonious theories which explain the same data without him. But, importantly, this IS NOT evidence against god/the supernatural and not (in itself) a reason for rejecting God/the supernatural. This is because such an argument would be circular. Science is a tool designed to study the natural world, so the fact that it finds no evidence for the supernatural is trivially true.
Science doesn't make truth claims. It just seeks to make accurate models about what we can observe. Making accurate models and seeking the truth are very different.
Posted by: Physics | December 22, 2011 at 03:12 PM
Is this supernatural? How about them apples?
Posted by: Physics | December 22, 2011 at 03:16 PM
I gave you an example of a when it would be reasonable to claim this - reasoning.
Posted by: SteveK | December 22, 2011 at 03:33 PM