The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True - by Richard Dawkins

[ant]

I'm going to ignore your quibbling play and your personal attack.

Without admitting that it was justified? Your posts were the issue, not my responses. C'mon.

Bull.

You quibbled with the wording of the fallacy and responded with a pompous tone.
You also mentioned church for a derogatory reason and nothing more.

I simply disagree with all these atheistic ramblings about reality, evidence, and the like.

For instance..,

Why might we think there is or has ever been a god? We don't know anything of the sort is even possible, there are no confirmed existence of anything of the sort.

Right.., we don't know it's possible, therefore it doesn't exist because we haven't confirmed it.

Really?? Wow! How myopic!

[tbarron]

Whatever you may think of Dawkins, this book is about science, not about God. I just bought a copy for my 12-year-old granddaughter. (Yes, I'm a freakin' grandfather). "God" isn't even in the index.

As Pullman says in the blurb on the back, this is "the clearest and most beautifully written introduction to science I've ever read."

So my point is that anyone who automatically equates science with being anti religion is coming at it from a dogmatic perspective.

I haven't seen the book but I imagine it's good
Nice that you're a grandpa!

So Ant hasn't even seen the book but we're using the thread intended for discussing The Magic of Reality to respond to his baiting. Could we move the debate about God to another thread so this one can return to being about the book?

[ant]

I agree with you that our understanding of the universe is limited, and may well always be limited. But we truly never will know much if methodical methods of inquiry are thrown away, and mythology substituted in its place. Magical thinking can be comforting, and even fun, but in the end is superficial, and will not satisfy our curiosity about existence. Only findings that have some reasonable underpinings can provide nourishment for a truly open intellect. Myth and magic ultimately provide contentment only for the superficial, the disinterested, and the fearful. A truly humble, and honest, approach to existence is to admit how little we know, and then roll up our sleeves and try and expand that amount, rather than fleeing to a comforting myth, while ignoring all the obvious contridictions that this entails.

No one is asking to throw anything away. I hope you understand that.
And I'm not speaking of myth and magic here. I've never indicated that because the Bible states the Red Sea was parted, god exists.

A truly humble, and honest, approach to existence is to admit how little we know, and then roll up our sleeves and try and expand that amount,

I agree

rather than fleeing to a comforting myth, while ignoring all the obvious contridictions that this entails.

There are many prominent scientists that are not "fleeing" to the comfort of myth.
Many scientists that do believe in a god do so because they do not believe science in omnipotent. They do not believe science can explain everything. They are not dogmatic about science. Their "faith" does not need to be confirmed by science. They do not bow down to the great Oracle of Science like Peter Atkins and his pompous aura.

[ant]

So Ant hasn't even seen the book but we're using the thread intended for discussing The Magic of Reality to respond to his baiting. Could we move the debate about God to another thread so this one can return to being about the book?

No one is baiting anyone here.
It is not uncommon for threads to digress into other topics. Do some digging on this website and take your pick. It's happened many, many, many times before. I'm being singled out here because I disagree with resident atheists. If you'd like, you can request for me to be censured.

If you are unhappy with the direction this topic has gone, then simply move on. You can't control every post that is posted.

And actually, I have "seen" the book. I haven't read it, but I've thumbed through it. I like it, like I like other books I've read by Dawkins.
And actually, I do like Richard Dawkins. He's a great evolutionary scientist. But when he dips in to Theology, Philosophy, he's not as good.

Also, Dawkins has stated before he is willing to entertain the possibility of a cosmic intelligence that might exist, but will not concede to a belief in a petty god like the god of the old testament. I can respect that statement.

[youkrst]

I can respect that statement.

yeah, me too.

[tbarron]

So Ant hasn't even seen the book but we're using the thread intended for discussing The Magic of Reality to respond to his baiting. Could we move the debate about God to another thread so this one can return to being about the book?

No one is baiting anyone here.

Hmm... I guess I got a wrong impression.

It is not uncommon for threads to digress into other topics. Do some digging on this website and take your pick. It's happened many, many, many times before. I'm being singled out here because I disagree with resident atheists. If you'd like, you can request for me to be censured.

I agree that threads digress and I'm not interested in getting you censured. I'd like you to read the book so we can talk about it. I singled you out because you said you hadn't even seen the book that I'd like to discuss, yet you're posting all over the thread intended for discussing it. If you were involved in a thread about baroque music and I hijacked it into a discussion of why Beethoven didn't exist, I wouldn't be surprised if you got a little irritated. I'm not even asking you to quit saying what you want to say. I'm just asking that until you read the book so you have something to contribute to a discussion of it, that you say what you want to on another thread. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

If you are unhappy with the direction this topic has gone, then simply move on. You can't control every post that is posted.

We live in a social world. We have to figure out how to get along with each other, or go to war (at least figuratively). I don't want to go to war, even figuratively. I made a request, you're pushing back. Now we're negotiating.

And actually, I have "seen" the book. I haven't read it, but I've thumbed through it. I like it, like I like other books I've read by Dawkins.
And actually, I do like Richard Dawkins. He's a great evolutionary scientist. But when he dips in to Theology, Philosophy, he's not as good.

Great! Quote us chapter and verse from Magic and show us what you mean.

Also, Dawkins has stated before he is willing to entertain the possibility of a cosmic intelligence that might exist, but will not concede to a belief in a petty god like the god of the old testament. I can respect that statement.

Okay. What's your point? I'm just asking that we get back to a discussion of the book.

Apropos of which, Dawkins writes

We come to know what is real, then in one of three ways. We can detect it directly, using our five senses; or indirectly, using our senses aided by special instruments such as telescopes and microscopes; or even more indirectly, by creating models of what might be real and then testing those models to see whether they successfully predict things that we can see (or hear, etc.), with or without the aid of instruments. Ultimately, it always comes back to our senses, one way or another.

Does this mean that reality only contains things that can be detected, directly or indirectly, by our senses and by the methods of science? What about things like jealousy and joy, happiness and love? Are these not also real?

What do you think? Does reality only contain things that can be detected, directly or indirectly, by our senses and by the methods of science? If reality does contain something that cannot be detected in one of the three ways Dawkins outlines, how would we find out about or confirm its existence?

[ant]

If god is the creator of all that is then he is separate from all there is.
That would mean a god of this sort would be beyond our observation,understanding, and scientific confirmation.

But this is impossible. Why? Because..,

Militant atheists can admit, with large doses of humility (which they don't have on their own) that we could not possibly know all there is to know, but we can be almost certain there is no god, because, err, because evolution is understood and Richard Dawkins tells us we might as well say there's a tea pot orbiting earth if we want to entertain the possibility of the existence of a god.
That and we would almost certainly have evidence that there is a god because damn it we want evidence!
Evidence like seeing him sitting on some throne in the sky. That or observing him playing tennis or something.

Yes, that's how silly these confident, know it all, militant atheists sound when I hear them speak or read what they write.

It's just as funny and listening to their rants about the OT god and religious extremists

[etudiant]

I agree with you that our understanding of the universe is limited, and may well always be limited. But we truly never will know much if methodical methods of inquiry are thrown away, and mythology substituted in its place. Magical thinking can be comforting, and even fun, but in the end is superficial, and will not satisfy our curiosity about existence. Only findings that have some reasonable underpinings can provide nourishment for a truly open intellect. Myth and magic ultimately provide contentment only for the superficial, the disinterested, and the fearful. A truly humble, and honest, approach to existence is to admit how little we know, and then roll up our sleeves and try and expand that amount, rather than fleeing to a comforting myth, while ignoring all the obvious contridictions that this entails.

No one is asking to throw anything away. I hope you understand that.
And I'm not speaking of myth and magic here. I've never indicated that because the Bible states the Red Sea was parted, god exists.

Yet if you are speaking about God in the tradional sense- an omnipotent being that is directing the ebb and flow of human existence- you are talking about myth and magic, by definition. Magical thinking means assuming things are as they are by relying on our own hopes, beliefs, desires, and projection, and negating what objective evidence there might be. Relying on myth means accepting stories that have gone before, and not asking hard questions about their validity.

A truly humble, and honest, approach to existence is to admit how little we know, and then roll up our sleeves and try and expand that amount,

I agree

rather than fleeing to a comforting myth, while ignoring all the obvious contridictions that this entails.

There are many prominent scientists that are not "fleeing" to the comfort of myth.
Many scientists that do believe in a god do so because they do not believe science in omnipotent. They do not believe science can explain everything. They are not dogmatic about science. Their "faith" does not need to be confirmed by science. They do not bow down to the great Oracle of Science like Peter Atkins and his pompous aura.

Belief in God is a psychological function that is well understood by those scientists that have considered the issue. It is fear based, in that it is a solution for those so intimated by existence that they simply must, must, have an answer to vexing questions about life, and are not content to wait, and weather an uncertain existence. Some can stare into the dark and be OK. Others cannot. The latter tends to seek solace in religion.

Your description of science as ominpotent suggests to me that you have an unclear perception of science. Science is the most humble of concepts. It says: We know nothing. And we will know nothing, without some sort of organized, objective, rigorous system of looking at the universe. We may never know everything, maybe not even one percent. But by caving to psychological needs- fears, projection, insecurity- we will most certainly not know much. We may know more about our inner process, but not much about the outer world.

We may never know "everything", but filling in the gaps with mythology is not going to advance us beyond medieval concepts. You use the word "faith", but even that implies that there is no hard evidence for your claims. Only the processes what comes from within, meaning psychological processes, might be illuminated by resorting to mythology. If one also declines to examine this, then there is nothing left but a set of flimsy and transparent hopes and fears.

Examing the universe with courage is a much better way to go, if you ask me.

[ant]

I'll humor you:

I believe in god because I'm afraid.

Thanks for explaining that to me.
And thanks for letting me know that science has exposed all men and women who profess belief in a god as simply being afraid of the dark.

Well ain't that just plain ducky.

[youkrst]

ant, you say you believe in god.

Can you describe the kind of god you believe in, and does this belief include a literal historic Jesus and a literal interpretation of the virgin birth?