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

[Chris OConnor]

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

It seems this is one of those books that we like to read around here.

Richard Dawkins, bestselling author and the world’s most celebrated evolutionary biologist, has spent his career elucidating the many wonders of science. Here, he takes a broader approach and uses his unrivaled explanatory powers to illuminate the ways in which the world really works. Filled with clever thought experiments and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena: How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a jigsaw puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? Starting with the magical, mythical explanations for the wonders of nature, Dawkins reveals the exhilarating scientific truths behind these occurrences. This is a page-turning detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.

[geo]

There are a few Dawkins books I'd like to read, including his The Greatest Show on Earth.

Richard Dawkins transformed our view of God in his blockbuster, The God Delusion, which sold more than 2 million copies in English alone. He revolutionized the way we see natural selection in the seminal bestseller The Selfish Gene. Now, he launches a fierce counterattack against proponents of "Intelligent Design" in his latest New York Times bestseller, The Greatest Show on Earth. "Intelligent Design" is being taught in our schools; educators are being asked to "teach the controversy" behind evolutionary theory. There is no controversy. Dawkins sifts through rich layers of scientific evidence—from living examples of natural selection to clues in the fossil record; from natural clocks that mark the vast epochs wherein evolution ran its course to the intricacies of developing embryos; from plate tectonics to molecular genetics—to make the airtight case that "we find ourselves perched on one tiny twig in the midst of a blossoming and flourishing tree of life and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random selection." His unjaded passion for the natural world turns what might have been a negative argument, exposing the absurdities of the creationist position, into a positive offering to the reader: nothing less than a master’s vision of life, in all its splendor.

But as for the Magic of Reality, that does look good. I think it was written for a younger audience, but I would totally read it.

And there's even an iPad app.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-mag ... 71375?mt=8

[Dexter]

I bought the iPad app, I read part of it, it's very good. Was planning to read the rest one of these days.

It may be written simply, but I don't feel like it's dumbed down. I know for me, if a kid (or anyone) asked me some of the questions he addresses, I'd have a difficult time giving an intelligible answer. So I can certainly benefit from it.

[ant]

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

It seems this is one of those books that we like to read around here.

Richard Dawkins, bestselling author and the world’s most celebrated evolutionary biologist, has spent his career elucidating the many wonders of science. Here, he takes a broader approach and uses his unrivaled explanatory powers to illuminate the ways in which the world really works. Filled with clever thought experiments and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena: How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a jigsaw puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? Starting with the magical, mythical explanations for the wonders of nature, Dawkins reveals the exhilarating scientific truths behind these occurrences. This is a page-turning detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.

Since science is based on observation, and we, as limited creatures, will not be able to observe everything in existence, most hypothesis are "educated" guesses. It follows that we will NEVER know all there is to know with any definitiveness.

It is like an atheist to be pious about this thing called existence. Piety and arrogance. Science turned into dogma.

Although most of the observable world and the mechanics behind it are explainable, please do not profess this to be evidence or "proof" of the existence of nothing beyond the material world, namely, a "God."

[ant]

Richard Dawkins transformed our view of God

The above is laughable at best.

Puhlease.

[Dexter]

[
Since science is based on observation, and we, as limited creatures, will not be able to observe everything in existence, most hypothesis are "educated" guesses. It follows that we will NEVER know all there is to know with any definitiveness.

I'll grant you that the statement about Dawkins transforming our view of God is a little over the top.

But we've heard all this many times -- if you think science is making an educated guess, how much more of a guess are the claims about God based on an incoherent, ancient man-made book? Why are scientists the arrogant ones rather than theists making specific, remarkable claims without evidence? Shouldn't they all be self-professed agnostics? If you want to insist on 100% certainty, even Dawkins will admit he's agnostic. As you must be agnostic about a giant hidden banana in the sky.

[ant]

ancient man-made book?

Um, maybe that was an ancient attempt at considering the existence of a "god'? Ya think?
Uh, maybe, our understanding develops over time?
It's arrogance to believe "explanation" points to the non-existence of a higher intelligence.
Really now..

The teapot, banana rebuttal nonsense is just that - nonsense.
That is a silly, idiotic oversimplification of the issue. It says nothing.

Actually, I don't think you can prove your mind's existence. Quite frankly, you probably are just a teapot, hissing on a stove.


Common, Dexter. You and other atheists like Dawkins are simply guessing there's "probably almost certainly no god" as you safely put it.

It's odd that religion tries to unify everything by saying one being is responsible for everything. Feel free to inject the "god of the gaps" here.
It's odd that science, particularly the hardcore materialists among them, are trying to unify everything as well with TOE (a Theory of Everything)

Yes, of course. Science will prove it with TOE, but minus a "God."
Good grief.

[Dexter]

Good grief indeed. You still can't grasp the idea of burden of proof.

Religion makes claims without evidence. But apparently someone doubting the claims is arrogant, dogmatic, silly, etc. because they can't prove a negative.

[ant]

Religion makes claims without evidence

Good grief.
What evidence do you have of the non-existence of god?
You make the claim there is certainly no god, you get the burden of proof. Don't whine about you shouldn't have it placed on your lap. And don't cop-out by screaming agnosticism when it gets too hot for you.

What's the evidence for the multiverse theory?
You think you're entitled to it because you're a scientist?

[Dexter]

Indeed, I cannot prove a negative. You win. Which of the Gods shall I bow to?