A few weeks ago I suggested that BT members who showed an interest in the chosen non-fiction book for discussion make a few comments near the end of the discussion period. These comments might help BT members with future book suggestions for discussion.

THE MAGIC OF REALITY
I read the book over a week early in May. I enjoyed it very much. As a former teacher I was especially intrigued by Dawkins manner of explaining difficult concepts in a way that would appeal to the adolescent student.
Although I enjoyed the read and reflecting on many of the ideas in the book, I didn’t see too much material for in depth discussions with the group.

On a more personal note, the book was a huge success in another area. I’ve been trying to get my 15 year old granddaughter interested in science for some time (she lost interest around ten years of age). She was intrigued with the books title and the wonderful illustrations and asked to borrow it. I gladly gave her the book (and bought myself another cheaper copy) and we have had some great conversations about the contents, especially Chapter 4, “What Are Things Made of?”

Thanks for the comments, LevV!

It was a good idea to post final thoughts, although it looks like only a couple of people are participating.

It's difficult for me to assess THE MAGIC OF REALITY, largely because I'm not really the intended audience. Because the book is geared towards a young audience, the writing style wasn't as engaging as Dawkin's usual stuff. That said, I don't feel Dawkins talks down to the reader at all, and for this he is to be commended, for he introduces some heady topics. He does a great job explaining some difficult concepts without getting too encumbered in detail. I would I would absolutely recommend this book to any young reader, say anywhere from 12-17, or anyone who wants an overview to the sciences regardless of age.

Perhaps more importantly, THE MAGIC OF REALITY also presents a kind of philosophic primer based on a materialistic worldview. Dawkins starts most chapters by discussing various primitive myths that explain the workings of the world and then goes on to explain how things really work, according to what we know from evidence. Dawkins treads lightly on religion for the most part, but it really is amazing how pervasive some of our notions are, whether they are based on religion or outmoded Platonic concepts.

For example, we want to believe that the world is a just place where good things happen to good people and bad things only happen to bad people. But in reality, bad things happen to good people all the time and sometimes good things happen to bad people. For most of human history, if something bad happened, people thought it had to do with demons or curses. Dawkins discusses why we believe in luck, why we tend to be superstitious, why we like to tell stories, why we are sometimes so gullible. There's some really good critical thinking primer material here.

He does touch on religion in the last couple of chapters. In the last chapter, "What Is A Miracle?" Dawkins discusses Hume's argument of what constitutes a miracle. Basically, no testimony is going to be sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous. I find Hume's statement to "apportion belief to the evidence" a much more concise way of thinking about this.

Here, Dawkins, paraphrases Hume's argument:

If John tells you a miracle story, you should believe it only if it would be even more of a miracle for it to be a lie (or a mistake or an illusion). . . . No matter how trustworthy and honest John might normally be , the idea of his telling a lie (or having an honest hallucination) would be less of a miracle than a cow literally jumping over the moon.

Dawkins uses several examples of reported miracles, including Jesus' miracle of turning water into wine and presents the argument as thus:

1) It really happened. Water really did turn into wine.
2) It was a clever conjuring trick.
3) Nothing of the kind happened at all. It is just a story, a piece of fiction, that somebody made up. Or there was a misunderstanding of something far less remarkable which really did happen.

Obviously, if we use Hume's argument, number three is by far the most likely scenario. Is it fair for Dawkins to question some people's sacred beliefs? Obviously some people would be offended, but after reading MAGIC, I think that one of the books' most redeeming qualities is that it does challenge a few sacred cows and other assumptions that we tend not to question.