Ch. 1: What is reality? What is magic?

[ant]

youre right. this is a book discussion thread and i shouldnt be carrying on in it.
But remember, i responded to comments obviously directed at me.
you cant deny that.

but, okay my bad. ill move away from this thread for the sake of the space that its intended for.
thanks for the offer to join in if i plan on getting the book.
i just might becuase its on IBooks for $7.95.

[Robert Tulip]

I am reading The Magic of Reality and finding it wonderful. Dawkin’s device of aiming his argument at an intelligent teenager actually provides an excellent method, because he provides a very simple explanation of existence and reality, grounded in logic and evidence.

His three meanings of magic are miracle, conjuring and awe. Miracles are ruled out by science. Conjuring is just entertainment. The real magic of reality of the book’s title is the awe and reverence that is due to reality for being true. We should stand in awe of scientific discovery, uncovering the beautiful complexity and elegant consistency of our universe.

There is nothing impolite about asking why the universe exists. We should wonder about the deepest questions. Indeed, such questions give rise to a metaphysical impulse that can help us establish values on the basis of facts. What needs to be avoided though, is any assertion that asking deep existential questions somehow provides a route to bypass scientific knowledge. There are implicit values in any assertion that one such question is primary while others are secondary. Science is the rock upon which our understanding is built. Religious disrespect for science is like building a house on sand. If we want to connect to the magic of reality, science is the only path.

Heidegger saw the question of why there is anything at all as like a muffled bell tolling in the background of our everyday concerns, providing the concealed foundation for metaphysical questions of value. Ontology, the study of reality, is for Heidegger grounded in anxiety about such existential questions which are needed to reveal being as a whole. Upon this sense of the whole, we can then start to talk about care, time and meaning. For Heidegger the framework of existence is provided by nature, reason and truth, fundamental concepts which do not correspond directly to any entity, but which provide a metaphysical ground for accurate thought.

For Dawkins to speak of reality as magical opens an interesting recognition of the need for metaphysical values to give our scientific knowledge a framework of value. We value facts because they have a magical quality of connecting us to ultimate reality, not in the sense of something that we cannot understand, but rather as something that in principle we can understand, even though our knowledge is incomplete. This understanding is the basis of any authentic reverence. Copernicus expressed his reverence for nature on the basis of his observation that it follows consistent laws. This scientific principle of the coherence of the universe is the source of genuine wonder.

[DWill]

I am reading The Magic of Reality and finding it wonderful. Dawkin’s device of aiming his argument at an intelligent teenager actually provides an excellent method, because he provides a very simple explanation of existence and reality, grounded in logic and evidence.

His three meanings of magic are miracle, conjuring and awe. Miracles are ruled out by science. Conjuring is just entertainment. The real magic of reality of the book’s title is the awe and reverence that is due to reality for being true. We should stand in awe of scientific discovery, uncovering the beautiful complexity and elegant consistency of our universe.

There is nothing impolite about asking why the universe exists. We should wonder about the deepest questions. Indeed, such questions give rise to a metaphysical impulse that can help us establish values on the basis of facts. What needs to be avoided though, is any assertion that asking deep existential questions somehow provides a route to bypass scientific knowledge. There are implicit values in any assertion that one such question is primary while others are secondary. Science is the rock upon which our understanding is built. Religious disrespect for science is like building a house on sand. If we want to connect to the magic of reality, science is the only path.

I know that much is made of awe and reverence as the basis of "true" religious feeling. I don't believe there's any chance of determining a true/false on that, but heading from the awe/reverence angle on to values isn't the line to take, is it? Awe isn't a value, nor is reverence, necessarily. 'Values' as a term suffers from vagueness, anyway. Values in our lives are what we say we believe in, not what we experience or feel. I haven't been reading the book, although I expect to find it inspiring if I do, but I suspect that Dawkins isn't out to make any points about our values. I understand that you are extending the 'magic' of science into the realm of values.

I'm reminded of the last Sam Harris book I read, The Moral Landscape, in which Harris argues that science can determine (or sometimes it was 'help' determine) our values. I recall your having something to say about that, though I can't recall if you read the book. Harris said that, based on the physical responses in brains, we could determine whether a given action promoted well-being for an individual, or not. Science (of course, neuroscience) would be a key tool for us.
In other, less direct ways, too, science could help us solve our moral problems. I lost count of the number of times where Harris said that we don't have answers yet, but that there is no reason to doubt that they can be found through reason and science. Whereas the alternative method of discovery, religion, will never be able to do any better than it has.

I wasn't sure at the time I read the book, but now I believe that Harris didn't succeed in his unconventional case that science and values are not, as always claimed, separate realms. But I won't go further into that right now.

I'm inclined to disagree that science is the bedrock of our understanding. "Understanding' is, of course, another vague or all-encompassing word that needs specification. Science is the bedrock of our understanding about the matters that we can explore through its methods, but our understanding is a larger thing always. Our understanding includes what we understand as right and wrong, worthy and unworthy, good and bad. It would be foolish to say, "Science doesn't help us there," because it must be one of multiple influences that have moved us gradually from an early state of moral thinking to a later and more advanced one. But still, part of a general drift, not the generator. I'm thinking of Pinker's book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and how his data allows us say without fear of chauvinsim that we have made moral progress. That data is itself a product of the scientific method, so we can see the kind of contribution that science can indeed make to our appreciation of the moral progress of our species.

It also seems important to keep in mind that science, in its most basic form, has existed since day one of our species (even though there wasn't really a day one!). We were always using induction, very slowly at first, to puzzle out the workings of nature, even if we found it prudent to attribute the causes and the unpredictables to the gods. After three or four centuries of the discipline of science, is it fair to say that we've become much less bound to divine revelation for our moral beliefs? Yes, but does this mean that science has played a larger role in determining our moral values? I think science has let us see that our moral values have a history of evolution and a primary role in our success as a species. Morality wasn't given to us by fiat, is what all of the work into evolutionary psychology has shown us. But still, this tool of discovery doesn't provide us with the means to establish our values.

Late realization: this thread is about the book. Sorry for also taking the discussion off track, but Robert is my convenient scapegoat.

[Robert Tulip]

I know that much is made of awe and reverence as the basis of "true" religious feeling. I don't believe there's any chance of determining a true/false on that, but heading from the awe/reverence angle on to values isn't the line to take, is it? Awe isn't a value, nor is reverence, necessarily.

Reverence is a fundamental value. We value what we revere.

'Values' as a term suffers from vagueness, anyway. Values in our lives are what we say we believe in, not what we experience or feel.

Yes, but here we have Dawkins speaking of “the magic of reality”, an idea that really out-vagues values. This is the problem of any language that is not simply empirical, it is vague by definition. So when Dr Dawkins speaks of the awe he feels for the great truths of science, he is speaking emotionally about his feelings. Awe is not a logical concept, it is a subjective experience. I am having trouble working out the difference here between ‘belief’ and ‘experience’. Our experience by and large is our cultural formation, and that is the main framework of our beliefs and values. We value what we are taught to value, especially whatever we actually hold as sacred.

I haven't been reading the book, although I expect to find it inspiring if I do, but I suspect that Dawkins isn't out to make any points about our values. I understand that you are extending the 'magic' of science into the realm of values.

This is a values book. When Dawkins says he finds science to be magical, he is saying it has an intrinsic value. He pours scorn on people who do not value facts, and expresses respect and admiration for those who are the great trailblazers of factual discovery, thereby providing a theory of value. Evidence and logic are Dawkins’ highest values.

I'm reminded of the last Sam Harris book I read, The Moral Landscape, in which Harris argues that science can determine (or sometimes it was 'help' determine) our values. I recall your having something to say about that, though I can't recall if you read the book. Harris said that, based on the physical responses in brains, we could determine whether a given action promoted well-being for an individual, or not. Science (of course, neuroscience) would be a key tool for us.

I did read The Moral Landscape and thought it quite incoherent. The great superiority of Dawkins over Harris is that Dawkins does not go for some cheap reductivism but is happy to respect the sense of wonder inherent in an emotional response to reality as magical.

In other, less direct ways, too, science could help us solve our moral problems. I lost count of the number of times where Harris said that we don't have answers yet, but that there is no reason to doubt that they can be found through reason and science. Whereas the alternative method of discovery, religion, will never be able to do any better than it has.

Science will only help us solve our moral problems when it turns into a religion. Part of the spiritual power of science rests in this very fact of its resistance to metaphysics. But that is why it is so interesting to see Dawkins rehabilitating the concept of magic – in a purely logical and empirical way. Science is becoming a framework for a comprehensive mythology.

I wasn't sure at the time I read the book, but now I believe that Harris didn't succeed in his unconventional case that science and values are not, as always claimed, separate realms. But I won't go further into that right now.

The idea that science and values are “separate realms” is stupid. There is one realm and it is called the universe. Or as Dawkins puts it, “reality”. Values that are not grounded in facts are empty. It reminds me of Kant’s famous synthesis of reason and evidence, “"Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind." Similarly, we could say "Values without facts are empty; facts without values are blind."

I'm inclined to disagree that science is the bedrock of our understanding. "Understanding' is, of course, another vague or all-encompassing word that needs specification. Science is the bedrock of our understanding about the matters that we can explore through its methods, but our understanding is a larger thing always. Our understanding includes what we understand as right and wrong, worthy and unworthy, good and bad.

Can we really understand anything except facts? Understanding refers to knowledge, not belief. I can say I believe Mozart is better than Beethoven, but not that I “understand” Mozart is better than Beethoven. Belief is subjective while understanding is objective. To say understanding includes morality requires acceptance of axioms, fundamental values, regarding what is good and bad. We can only then apply understanding to morality when we see that certain actions are means to what we believe is a good or evil end.

It would be foolish to say, "Science doesn't help us there," because it must be one of multiple influences that have moved us gradually from an early state of moral thinking to a later and more advanced one. But still, part of a general drift, not the generator.

That is debatable. I think of evidence as the generator of sound morality. Admittedly it is highly complex, since evidence is not enough to produce a science of management. Formation of judgment requires a synthesis of experience in wisdom, and convincing others of a moral view always requires more than a collection of facts. But without a coherent collection of facts we are lost.

I'm thinking of Pinker's book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and how his data allows us say without fear of chauvinism that we have made moral progress. That data is itself a product of the scientific method, so we can see the kind of contribution that science can indeed make to our appreciation of the moral progress of our species.

Chauvinism is prejudice, the acceptance of assumptions that are untested by evidence. But the moral superiority of scientific thinking over unscientific thinking is the opposite of prejudice, because scientific method intrinsically involves the checking of all claims against facts.

It also seems important to keep in mind that science, in its most basic form, has existed since day one of our species (even though there wasn't really a day one!). We were always using induction, very slowly at first, to puzzle out the workings of nature, even if we found it prudent to attribute the causes and the unpredictables to the gods.

Yes, facts have an adaptive quality. The truth will out, as Shakespeare said in The Merchant of Venice. Progress involves the evolution of thought towards truth, ie knowledge of facts. Once known, a fact cannot generally be unknown. Science is cumulative, except when there is a social collapse.

After three or four centuries of the discipline of science, is it fair to say that we've become much less bound to divine revelation for our moral beliefs? Yes, but does this mean that science has played a larger role in determining our moral values? I think science has let us see that our moral values have a history of evolution and a primary role in our success as a species. Morality wasn't given to us by fiat, is what all of the work into evolutionary psychology has shown us. But still, this tool of discovery doesn't provide us with the means to establish our values.

Not yet, but it will. We are seeing the gradual emergence of a scientific paradigm in which evidence is becoming the foundation of morality. What we need is a much more vigorous and contestable discussion of the basis of values. This is where Dawkins’s description of science with the highly emotive and value-laden term ‘magic’ is such a provocation to both scientists who feel a visceral repugnance towards the magical and to the religious who feel content in their traditional impossible worldview.

Late realization: this thread is about the book. Sorry for also taking the discussion off track, but Robert is my convenient scapegoat.

It is actually not off track. As I said, the first sentence in the book says reality is everything that exists. That seems such a simple and obvious axiom, but it opens a wealth of questions, especially once Dawkins suggests we should hold reality in awe.

I remember a conversation with an astronomer in which he chided me for using the term ‘reality’. His opinion was that there is no objective reality because our descriptions of the universe are simply working constructions. Dawkins completely disagrees with that constructivist theory, as he suggests it leads to relativism, the idea that different constructions of reality can be equally valid, an idea that is refuted, rather like kicking a stone, by the observation that there are no relativists at 40,000 feet, because aeronautical engineering either works or it doesn’t.

[Robert Tulip]

Dawkins makes such simple clear comments. How about this one on page 15: "The only good reason to believe something exists is if there is real evidence that it does." Religious people say a good reason for belief is that they would like it to be true, or that they have had a revelation that they found personally convincing. Against Dawkins' sole criterion for belief, these religious justifications are not sufficient.

[Robert Tulip]

Scientific method makes discoveries by imagining models and testing them. (p17) Watson and Crick built metal and cardboard models of DNA. These models predicted exactly the kind of results seen by Mendel in his pea breeding experiment. Ultimately it comes back to our senses.

Our senses can detect emotions, because emotions are a product of brains. Things without brains don't have emotions. We can devise models to measure emotion. But that doesn't mean that only what can be modelled is real. It may be that some emotional states are so complex and fragile that it is impossible to devise experiments to measure them.

[Robert Tulip]

Dawkins says supernatural magic is "just fiction and does not happen in reality." (p19) He says anyone who claims they have supernatural powers is a charlatan. Dawkins says that charlatans often prey on people's gullibility and distress. And yet, the world is somehow magical.

"We are moved to tears by a beautiful piece of music and describe the performance as 'magical'. We gaze up at the stars on a dark night with no moon and no city lights and, breathless with joy, we say the sight is 'pure magic'. .. a sunset, a landscape, a rainbow ... magical simply means deeply moving, exhilarating, something that gives us goose bumps, something that makes us feel more fully alive ... reality - the facts of the real world as understood through science - is magical." p21

[DWill]

Dawkins says supernatural magic is "just fiction and does not happen in reality." (p19) He says anyone who claims they have supernatural powers is a charlatan. Dawkins says that charlatans often prey on people's gullibility and distress. And yet, the world is somehow magical.

"We are moved to tears by a beautiful piece of music and describe the performance as 'magical'. We gaze up at the stars on a dark night with no moon and no city lights and, breathless with joy, we say the sight is 'pure magic'. .. a sunset, a landscape, a rainbow ... magical simply means deeply moving, exhilarating, something that gives us goose bumps, something that makes us feel more fully alive ... reality - the facts of the real world as understood through science - is magical." p21

No longer believing, for the most part, in magic, we've repurposed the word. Somebody must have started this usage and it caught on (remind you of memes?). It wasn't necessarily natural for the word to come to stand for an emotional state of absorption in a moment. When 'magical' was used 500 years ago, perhaps nobody saw it as more than an adjective describing a type of art. I haven't consulted the OED to find out when the word detached from its literal meaning. This case seems not different from the use of 'incredible' to mean 'astounding.'

I suppose that we need to keep in mind the intended audience here, though. RD is using the language that will appeal to young readers.

[Robert Tulip]

in magic, we've repurposed the word. Somebody must have started this usage and it caught on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic shows the diversity of uses. I think the Dawkins sense of magic as 'awe of nature' is actually very old, and provides an esoteric natural foundation for much of the superficial supernatural superstition of mythology.

Looking at the history of magic, the renaissance in the 1500s involved colourful figures such as John Dee, magician to Queen Elizabeth the first of England. Dee reportedly did not distinguish magic from science. Frances Yates in her scholarly history of the occult explores how the renaissance provided the shoulders upon which the giants of the scientific enlightenment were able to stand, to as Newton put it, see even further.

Sir Isaac Newton, apart from discovering the law of gravity, had a deep interest in alchemy, something often glossed as an irrelevant embarrassment. Newton translated the Emerald Tablet of Thoth, a document traditionally seen as central to magic because of its founding axiom 'as above so below'. Newton used this old idea in a purely scientific way, to explain that the same law of gravity runs the planets (as above) and things on earth (so below). This idea extends to the scientific principle, as described by Steven Jay Gould, that macrocosms reflect microcosms, as an axiom of evolutionary causality. The scientific theory of fractal chaos and complexity is often described as magical, in this Dawkins sense.

For Dawkins, it is rather magical that we can predict the future by the laws of physics through objective mathematics. The logic of science shows that everything is connected, that all matter obeys the same laws. This principle of connection forms the traditional magical axiom 'all is one'. It is wonderful to explore such ideas liberated from the weight of superstition.

[Robert Tulip]

Science and the Supernatural

Religion is sometimes defined as involving belief in supernatural entities and forces. Dawkins explains that any belief in the supernatural is an obsolete way of thought. This means that if religion is to survive as a social movement with any claims to connect to truth, it has to abandon all its literal claims about the supernatural because they are not true.

On pages 21 and 22, Dawkins says that a supernatural explanation actually rules out any real explanation. This means that belief in the supernatural is false and corrupted. Science has continually expanded its knowledge of things once thought to be magical, such as germs, earthquakes and eclipses. The progress of science gives confidence that everything that happens is consistent with universal physical laws. Denying this basic fact is lazy and stupid.

Invoking the supernatural means suggesting something can never in principle be explained by science. This shows a basic problem with the concept of the supernatural, when treated in any literal way, that it corrupts our curiosity. Scientists regard inexplicable events as a challenge, something spurring us to understand nature better. But it always turns out that miracles are explained by error, not magic.

As the philosopher David Hume says in a celebrated quote on page 245, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”

Bionov recently mentioned the importance that Alcoholics Anonymous places on belief in a higher power. I think it is a genuine philosophical and psychological conundrum how we can respect the benefits of such belief, as shown by AA, while also holding to a scientific understanding.

There is a fascinating article about the health benefits of religious belief at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity While the argument can be questioned by noting that secular Scandinavian societies are the richest, happiest and healthiest in the world, there still seems to be a case that belief in the supernatural is often helpful in practical ways.