Explanations through the supernatural and belief in a higher power, such as that used by AA, are different things. Don't you think that even religious people have largely abandoned superstitious belief to explain everyday causation such as sickness and the weather? If they say that God is behind it all, when all is said and done, that is very different from believing in good and evil spirits or whatever. Even the fossilized belief that God created everything in 6 days, etc., resides in the background for these believers, presenting not much of a hindrance to their participation in the rest of modern life.

I haven't been reading the book, but my assumption is that Dawkins doesn't make these connections between the magical arts of yore and science. I think the fact that he can call wonder of the natural world 'magical' is due to the common occurrence of new, metaphorical meanings evolving from literal meanings. I wanted to check on the etymological history of 'magical,' but found that the OED isn't a free online tool.

Beyond a certain developmental stage, children today don't retain a belief in supernatural causes for phenomena. So I think that Dawkins probably isn't trying to combat a tide of magical thinking in children. He's combating ignorance of science, more likely, and wants children to know that the world is no less wonder-ful when we rationalize it using the tools of science.

DWill wrote:Explanations through the supernatural and belief in a higher power, such as that used by AA, are different things.

Yes that is true, and worth clarifying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Power states that a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, Nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, science, Buddha. It is frequently stipulated that as long as a higher power is "greater" than the individual, then the only condition is that it should also be loving and caring. The term derives partly from William James, who wrote "The only cure for dipsomania is religiomania" in The Varieties of Religious Experience.

Returning to bionov's mention of AA at the First Cause thread, which got me thinking about this higher power concept, at http://www.booktalk.org/post117155.html#p117155 bionov said
"Here’s a quote from the Big Book of AA to ponder:
“We read wordy books and indulge in windy arguments, thinking we believe this universe needs no God to explain it. Were our contentions true, it would follow that life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere.”

This shows the common tendency to conflate higher power and the supernatural, in the psychological spirit of James' religiomania.

Dawkins, by contrast, has a purely natural view, "thinking we believe this universe needs no God to explain it." So it is interesting to explore if the factual magic of the Dawkins scientific worldview can also justify some values magic of the type that groups such as AA have found so psychologically useful.

Don't you think that even religious people have largely abandoned superstitious belief to explain everyday causation such as sickness and the weather? If they say that God is behind it all, when all is said and done, that is very different from believing in good and evil spirits or whatever.

That is precisely what is at issue in the debates over atheism. Religious people will claim to be rational, but will then react emotionally against rational critique of their beliefs. I am not sure that to "say that God is behind it all... is very different from believing in good and evil spirits." God is imagined as the ultimate good spirit, a foundation belief that justifies a wide range of wacky spiritual beliefs. Often such beliefs are socially useful, but I would hope we have prospect of cultural evolution, a recognition that the universe is enchanted in Dawkins' sense of awe and reverence, but that this sense of enchantment specifically rejects unscientific imagination except as poetic symbolism.

my assumption is that Dawkins doesn't make these connections between the magical arts of yore and science. I think the fact that he can call wonder of the natural world 'magical' is due to the common occurrence of new, metaphorical meanings evolving from literal meanings.

And my point above was that the new meaning of magic as awe for nature is actually old, and can readily be found in religious texts. Dawkins may not make the connection, but his scientific forebear Sir Isaac Newton certainly did. It is too glib to simply condescend to Newton as captured by irrationality - he was too smart for that. The philosophy of science requires that we understand what Newton meant by claiming to see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. Too often, cultural politics means that once we have made use of a giant, it is as though we have climbed a ladder to a higher floor and then kicked it away.

Dawkins probably isn't trying to combat a tide of magical thinking in children. He's combating ignorance of science, more likely, and wants children to know that the world is no less wonder-ful when we rationalize it using the tools of science.

He is more concerned by the tide of magical thinking in adults seen in the continued growth of fundamentalist religion. So he is trying to immunize children against irrationality.

I quibble with your phrase "the world is no less wonder-ful when we rationalize it using the tools of science." I would prefer to say the world is shorn of its wonder when we imagine unscientific explanations, so your 'no less' vastly understates the presence of wonder in science and its replacement by a fake imitation in supernatural religion. 'Rationalize' is a word with a pejorative ring, referring more to efforts to justify false belief. In this case, Dawkins is saying the world is only really seen as wonderful when we understand and explain it using science.

To conclude this first chapter of The Magic of Reality, Dawkins summarises Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Apparently, the chance of any unique card deal in a game of bridge is one in 5 x 10 to the power of 28. A deal where all four players each have a straight flush with all thirteen cards of one suit is just as likely as any other deal. But the pattern of this specific ordered hand means we assume a designer (ie cheating). Similarly, if we think a frog turned into a prince, we should assume cheating, as this cannot physically happen. In farming, individuals are paired to produce desired traits. But the designer of evolution is nature itself. Nature does not cheat. Any suggestion of a guiding intentional entity that drives evolution fails to see the elegant beauty of nature, in its awesome simple mathematical wonder and complexity.

‘Better at surviving’ simply means ‘more likely to reproduce’. The amazing thing in game theory, as Dawkins explained at length in his first book The Selfish Gene, is that the results of evolution can be understood mathematically. Biologists have worked out algorithms that show, for example, why male and female numbers of offspring tend to have a stable ratio in each species and environment.

Science has a concept called parsimony. A parsimonious person is stingy and frugal, and will not spend money without good reason. For nature, parsimony means everything that happens and exists has a reason, a material cause. In evolution, parsimony means that ultimately nothing goes to waste in an evolutionarily stable system. Even if an oak tree produces a million acorns over its life, and on average only one of these survives to reproduce, that is still a parsimonious production of acorns because it shows that if the tree grew less nuts it would be on the path to extinction. Over the hundred million or so years since flowering plants evolved, the gradual emergence of the complex genes of an oak tree have favoured those which produce many more acorns than will sprout and grow. Ecosystem data must contain an algorithm to explain this trait.

On page 30, Dawkins provides his fish to human example: “given yet more generations, ancestors that look like bacteria can change into descendants that look like humans. And this is exactly what happened…. There has been plenty of time for evolution to happen. This is Darwin’s great idea… The real world, as understood scientifically, has magic of its own, - the kind I call poetic magic, an inspiring beauty which is all the more magical because it is real and because we can understand how it works.”

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote:Explanations through the supernatural and belief in a higher power, such as that used by AA, are different things.

Yes that is true, and worth clarifying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Power states that a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, Nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, science, Buddha. It is frequently stipulated that as long as a higher power is "greater" than the individual, then the only condition is that it should also be loving and caring. The term derives partly from William James, who wrote "The only cure for dipsomania is religiomania" in The Varieties of Religious Experience.

Even though the AA literature can make 'higher power' appear loosey-goosey, I believe that in actual practice AA meetings (and AA is all about the meetings) use a more conventional Christian-based idea of higher power. This was the case with the two groups that I observed, and I've heard the same thing from others. In fact, the 'spiritual' aspect of AA is what many who don't take to it cite as the reason for withdrawing. Interestingly, studies find that the majority of people who quit drinking do it without AA or any other formal treatment. So WJ would appear to be wrong here.

Don't you think that even religious people have largely abandoned superstitious belief to explain everyday causation such as sickness and the weather? If they say that God is behind it all, when all is said and done, that is very different from believing in good and evil spirits or whatever.

That is precisely what is at issue in the debates over atheism. Religious people will claim to be rational, but will then react emotionally against rational critique of their beliefs. I am not sure that to "say that God is behind it all... is very different from believing in good and evil spirits." God is imagined as the ultimate good spirit, a foundation belief that justifies a wide range of wacky spiritual beliefs. Often such beliefs are socially useful, but I would hope we have prospect of cultural evolution, a recognition that the universe is enchanted in Dawkins' sense of awe and reverence, but that this sense of enchantment specifically rejects unscientific imagination except as poetic symbolism.

I don't know what debates over atheism you're talking about. That doesn't register with me because atheism isn't a cause. And I don't like to say it, Robert, but excoriating people simply over a concept of godness--which has to be supernatural to have much meaning--is intolerance. It's also highly inaccurate to to say that such a concept impedes the ability to appreciate or practice science. Darwin in his crucial early studies was conventional in religion, and of course modern scientists have been as well. Richard Dawkins can sound an intolerant note at times, but I would suspect that he doesn't believe that one cannot be fascinated with what science tells us about the natural world and have religious beliefs. Let's allow for diversity.

Robert Tulip wrote:]And my point above was that the new meaning of magic as awe for nature is actually old, and can readily be found in religious texts. Dawkins may not make the connection, but his scientific forebear Sir Isaac Newton certainly did. It is too glib to simply condescend to Newton as captured by irrationality - he was too smart for that. The philosophy of science requires that we understand what Newton meant by claiming to see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. Too often, cultural politics means that once we have made use of a giant, it is as though we have climbed a ladder to a higher floor and then kicked it away.

Remember that my point was only about vocabulary. Can you find me a usage from way back in English of 'magical' in the sense that Dawkins uses it? That's what I wanted to find out. On Newton, if you're going to cut the guy some slack, I'm afraid you'll have to do the same for all the common folk today as well. I've noticed that you may think a belief is justified because it can be construed as 'based on science,' but that means nothing, really. History is strewn with ideas that were regarded as scientific but now seem 'wacky.'

Robert Tulip wrote: He is more concerned by the tide of magical thinking in adults seen in the continued growth of fundamentalist religion. So he is trying to immunize children against irrationality.

I hope he hides his designs well if he has these! This book is strictly in line with his role as science educator, of which he is one of the best. He does avoid any polemic in the book, isn't that true? God, I hope so.

Robert Tulip wrote:I quibble with your phrase "the world is no less wonder-ful when we rationalize it using the tools of science." I would prefer to say the world is shorn of its wonder when we imagine unscientific explanations, so your 'no less' vastly understates the presence of wonder in science and its replacement by a fake imitation in supernatural religion. 'Rationalize' is a word with a pejorative ring, referring more to efforts to justify false belief. In this case, Dawkins is saying the world is only really seen as wonderful when we understand and explain it using science.

Dawkins can't hope to control what anyone sees as wonderful, and I'm sure he understands this. He is justifiably promoting a path to wonder of which he is a strong advocate. Great. That path uses rational inquiry to produce that wonder--no contradiction. Your 'supernatural religion ' is far too blanketing a term for whatever might prevent people from understanding the reality of nature. You're really talking about the subset of fundamentalists, not of all who profess to have religion. There are a lot of these in the U.S. and in many other countries (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, even Buddhist). An estimation of their political and social power--if that would be the primary objection to them--would be a subject for another discussion.

geo wrote:

DWill wrote:

geo wrote:Should be an interesting read. I will say that Dawkins haters should sit this one out unless they actually want to read the book and participate in the discussion. Just saying.

I agree, geo. At one point, you might recall, I thought that welcoming all comers to a discussion would show a spirit of openness to divergent ideas. It does that, but when the participants are poles apart or someone has a lot of animus against the subject or author right off the bat, the discussion isn't satisfying for anyone.

Actually, it should be interesting to see if Dawkins has an obvious agenda in this book which was written for a younger audience. Is he trying to indoctrinate children into a scientific worldview? (And by the way, I think it's perfectly okay if he is.) But I think he's probably very careful in his approach not to show an anti-religion slant. For example, "God" isn't in the index at all. Dawkins wisely steers clear of that topic.

I agree with you, I find it interesting that his book is directed toward a younger audience. Perhaps Dawkins realized that, rather than expressing his ideas to an older and already "set in" audience, those who already have clear opinions and thoughts about the world around them, it would be more beneficial to teach the younger generation how to view and effectively question everything around them before any particular ideals or thoughts become somewhat engraved into their personalities. In this way, he could help create a more educated future generation and gradually reduce the population of people who still subscribe to more 'medieval' forms of thought and beliefs. Aside from the obvious benefit of learning scientific methods and facts, at the very least, it could teach kids/teens to be less trusting of everything their told. I remember going through a phase when I was young where I believed everything that was written in a book or told to me by an adult/teacher was fact, although some people never leave that phase.

One thing I didn't quite agree with was when he talked about one of the three ways that we can detect what is real or not. He says that, "We can detect it directly, using our five senses (para. 1, p. 18)." However, what about in situations in which one is hallucinating? How is someone able to detect the difference between a hallucination and reality when the five sense can no longer be relied upon? Or Optical illusions. Or when two people are viewing the same object but perceive two different things, who is right and who is wrong in this situation? Both people would be relying on these same five sense, except that their individual senses would be functioning a little differently, I suppose. Another situation in which our senses might no be relied upon would be when our thoughts or opinions manipulate the way we actually see things, simply because that is what we want to see. Perhaps these are things he may address later on in the book though.

On a side note, I'm pretty excited to have my (near future) child grow up with this book.

LokiMon wrote: One thing I didn't quite agree with was when he talked about one of the three ways that we can detect what is real or not. He says that, "We can detect it directly, using our five senses (para. 1, p. 18)." However, what about in situations in which one is hallucinating? How is someone able to detect the difference between a hallucination and reality when the five sense can no longer be relied upon? Or Optical illusions. Or when two people are viewing the same object but perceive two different things, who is right and who is wrong in this situation? Both people would be relying on these same five sense, except that their individual senses would be functioning a little differently, I suppose. Another situation in which our senses might no be relied upon would be when our thoughts or opinions manipulate the way we actually see things, simply because that is what we want to see. Perhaps these are things he may address later on in the book though.

Dawkins would surely admit that your senses can deceive you, but in the context of scientific knowledge, it's not going to be based on one person's sense perceptions.

but in the context of scientific knowledge, it's not going to be based on one person's sense perceptions.

you can't separate or contain the experimenters subjective lens and bias from any methodology completely.
you want badly to claim absolute Truth, even at the expense of honesty.

also, the fallacy of affirming the consequent will always be a tension within science. it is something people like you will always gloss over or completely ignore - PERIOD.

ant wrote:

but in the context of scientific knowledge, it's not going to be based on one person's sense perceptions.

you can't separate or contain the experimenters subjective lens and bias from any methodology completely.
you want badly to claim absolute Truth, even at the expense of honesty.

also, the fallacy of affirming the consequent will always be a tension within science. it is something people like you will always gloss over or completely ignore - PERIOD.

Nobody but you, Ant, talks in terms of absolute truth or Truth. Or should I say people like you? You should address the argument, not your own strawmen.

LokiMon wrote: One thing I didn't quite agree with was when he talked about one of the three ways that we can detect what is real or not. He says that, "We can detect it directly, using our five senses (para. 1, p. 18)." However, what about in situations in which one is hallucinating? How is someone able to detect the difference between a hallucination and reality when the five sense can no longer be relied upon? Or Optical illusions.. . .

This question has been the core of philosophical debate dating back to the Greeks. What is the fundamental nature of reality? How do we know what is real? Is our belief of what is real based on sensory perceptions alone or can it be deduced from self-evident premises?

One of the main epistemological criteria used in the past was, does the belief conform to the Bible? Nowadays, we used more objective, scientific criteria. First and foremost, we understand that people can easily be fooled by their own sensory perceptions and by their own biases and other cultural influences. There is a difference between the subjective claim that I am having certain sensory experiences and the objective claim that an object exists independently of those sensory experiences.

But most of this is beyond the reach of Dawkins' book here. We recognize that our perception of reality is through our five senses. As Dawkins says, "We should always be open-minded, but the only good reason to believe that something exists is if there is real evidence that it does."

Can we justify our claims to have empirical knowledge of anything beyond our own subjective experiences? Well, most of us here would acknowledge that atoms exist without ever having seen one. Most of us believe the moon really exists though we can only see a pale image of it in the night sky. To doubt such things is to move into some very abstract territory.

Dawkins doesn't make any outlandish claims. He says: "Atoms have always existed, but it was only recently that we became sure of their existence, and it is very likely that our descendants will know about many more things that for now we do not. That is the wonder and joy of science: it goes on and on discovering new things."

ant wrote: you want badly to claim absolute Truth, even at the expense of honesty.

You want badly for someone to claim absolute Truth for science. Can you even find a single person in history to actually argue against? Congratulations for the ultimate strawman.