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

When I was a kid, I had a four volume set of science books. The name and publisher is long since lost to my memory, but the impact these books had on my young mind resonates even today. The volumes were richly illustrated, written in a lively and engaging manner, and addressed all the questions that my young mind could think of. Space travel, plate tectonics, microscopic wonders, time travel, etc. I recall hours and hours spent with this set of books; reading methodically or browsing aimlessly. So great was their impact on me that even into adulthood, when visiting my parents' house, I would pull these books off a dusty shelf in their basement and sit and reread portions out of sheer nostalgia and admiration. My recollections of this very special set of science books from my own childhood was powerfully evoked as I sat down with Richard Dawkins' new book The Magic of Reality. Within the first few pages, I was transported back to my 10 year old self by the style of writing and straightforward presentation of top notch science. Bill Bryson, in his A Short History of Nearly Everything, recalls his own experiences of childhood with science books, especially those used in elementary school classrooms. He bemoans the fact that so many times, those books presented fascinating content, but didn't answer the main question that he had; "how do they know that?" In Magic, Dawkins does answer that question, and does it in a way that I think will resonate with a whole new generation of young readers. The 12 chapters of Magic are structured around questions. Each chapter is titled by the topic question, "Who was the first person?" "Why are there so many different kinds of animals?" "What is a rainbow?" and so on. Each chapter begins with a survey of legend and mythology to explore how these questions were answered before the advent of science and the age of reason. The text is lavishly illustrated by Dave McKean with beautiful, colorful artwork. Every page has art, making for a compelling and interesting presentation. Dawkins' abilities as a communicator and explainer are well known. He is arguably the most significant popularizer of science since Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould. Predictably, given that his own expertise is in evolutionary biology, he has made his most significant impact in presenting evolution to a general readership. His first book, The Selfish Gene, is recognized as a seminal work and has sold over 1 million copies since its publication in 1976. He has been one of the most outspoken scientific voices combatting creationism in all its forms, and many of his publications in the 1980's and 90's were wonderful expositions of natural selection (The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable). His most recent book prior to Magic was The Greatest Show on Earth, his major exposition of the evidence in favor of Darwin's theory. So it's no surprise that I found the most engaging material in Magic are the chapters that deal directly with evolution. Dawkins takes it as a given that his readers - kids - are capable of understanding where we really come from. Evolution may be a complex academic discipline, but its basic tenants can be understood by anyone bothering to look at the issue seriously. With this book, Dawkins presents yet another opportunity for people to do so, this time in a vehicle aimed at young readers. Many of the arguments he presents can be found in other forms in some of his earlier writings. My favorite, by far, is found in chapter 2, "Who was the first person?" In this chapter, he uses an analogy that he's used before to illustrate the principle of gradual change and the fuzzy boundaries between species. Imagine, he says, if you take a picture of a person each and every day of their life. The picture taken on Tuesday, October 4th will look much like the picture taken Monday, October 3. In fact, over a period of days or weeks, not much change will take place. However, compare the October 4th picture with the picture of the same date of the year before, and you'll see some noticeable change. Compare pictures taken a decade apart, and you'll see even more dramatic differences. So then, he continues, when did the infant become the toddler? When did the child become the adolescent, or the boy the man? Such distinctions are impossible to identify on the scale of the minute changes that take place day to day. Dawkins then enlarges the model and asks us to image a picture taken once a generation; a man compared to his father, his grandfather, great grandfather, and so on, back in time over tens, hundreds and thousands of generations. How far back to we have to go before our ancestors are so very different from us? It's a fascinating thought experiment, and one that he and McKean illustrate beautifully by adding a horizontal stack of photographs to the bottom of each page of the chapter, thousands of photos tightly stacked and trailing across the page and onto the next. At intervals, the illustrations show a random picture plucked out so we can see it. Here a distinctly primitive man (the 50,000th-great-grandfather), two pages later a distinctly simian creature (your 250,000th-great-grandfather) and so on. His point, of course, is that imperceptible changes, when stacked up over hundreds of thousands of generations, add up to real and substantial changes, and the eventual emergence of new species. The book is filled with many such apt presentations and illustrations, but some of the content felt a bit forced. It appeared almost as though Dawkins had certain topics that he wanted to (or felt he needed to) cover, but rather than having an entire chapter devoted to then, he shoehorned them in somewhere else. One example of this occurs on pages 106-107, a two-page spread that illustrates and explains the phenomenon of free-fall, so-called weightlessness. This two-page spread is anchored by a McKean reproduction of Isaac Newton's classic illustration of the cannon atop a mountain sitting atop a miniature earth. Dotted lines illustrate how the cannon ball falls to the ground after it's fired from the barrel. The further the ball is hurled though, the further around the curved surface of the earth it travels, because the curvature causes the surface to drop away from the ball, even as the ball is dropping toward the ground. Finally, the ball is fired with enough velocity that it continues all they way around, as the ground drops away at the same rate that the ball falls. Ignoring resistance from the atmosphere, the ball would "fall" around the Earth forever. It's a typically clear and compelling explanation, and illustrated beautifully, and you would not be surprised to find it in a chapter entitled "Why are people and things weightless in spaceships?" or something similar. This explanation, however, is in the chapter entitled "Why do we have winter and summer?" Now clearly, the concept of an orbit is important here, because a necessary part of the explanation of the seasons involves understanding the behavior of the Earth as it orbits the sun. However, it seemed a bit pedantic and overkill to have it embedded in the main narrative of the chapter on seasons instead of as a sidebar or inset. Or indeed, as a separate chapter altogether, dedicated to the interesting topic of weightlessness. This observation leads me to another on the book itself. I was surprised when it arrived in the mail and found it was such a big book. Two hundred seventy pages (including index) and in a large format with fairly dense text. For some reason, ever since I heard about the book in pre-publication press releases, I was expecting a children's book. I had envisioned a large layout, 40-50 page book aimed at predominantly early elementary aged kids. This book is clearly aimed at younger readers, but much more middle school to younger high school students. The material is simplified, but by no means simple. Though Dawkins has made his reputation as a scientist and science popularizer, over the last five years he has also become well known as one of the most outspoken atheists and critics of religion in the world. His best selling book is not about biology at all, but atheism. His 2006 publication of The God Delusion sold over 2 million copies and raised the issue of atheism to the level of a major public conversation. What role, if any, does Dawkins' outspoken criticism of religion play in this new book? As one might predict, he does not shy away from the question, but neither does he confront it head on. As noted earlier, each chapter commences its exploration of the question at hand by surveying the myths and legends that were used to explain the unknown prior to the rise of science. Even before he brings the introductory chapter to a close, he fires a shot at a theistic sacred cow with this salvo, concluding a section under the heading the "slow magic of evolution:" The magical changing of a frog into a prince would be not gradual but sudden, and this is what rules such things out of the world of reality. Evolution is a real explanation, which really works, and has real evidence to demonstrate the truth of it; anything that suggests that complicated life forms appeared suddenly, in one go (rather than evolving gradually step by step), is just a lazy story - no better than the fictional magic of a fairy godmother's wand. This is characteristic of Dawkins' approach to the question of religion or theism in this book. He does not attack particular beliefs or creeds; he pointedly identifies sloppy thinking and anti-science superstitions. He treats Christianity as just another mythological tradition; one of many. Again, in chapter 7 (What is a rainbow), he says of the story of Noah's flood: In fact, it is obvious that the Jewish story of Noah is nothing more than a retelling of the older legend of Utnapishtim. It was a folk tale that got passed around, and it traveled down the centuries. This straightforward dismissal of the obvious point (at least obvious to skeptics of religion) that a story is just a story, and much different from a serious history or legitimate scientific explanation. Whether those stories are part of a cherished religious tradition or not makes no difference in this volume. This is not a book about bashing religious thinking in general, nor any specific religious tradition. Perhaps his most pointed directive aimed at religion comes in the final two chapters, "Why do bad things happen?" and "What is a miracle?" But even here, it's far from a confrontational critique. In these chapters, Dawkins returns to his strength: a simple and elegant discussion of the natural world and the nature of randomness. It's human nature to look for patterns or meaning. Children, when asked why trees have such rough bark, may reply that it's so animals can scratch themselves by rubbing against them. Likewise, we as a species are primed to see meaning and patterns, especially in the absence of other obvious reasons. Here, he both simplifies and expands upon the argument he and others have used in the past. Religion is simply a subset of thinking in which the formerly unexplainable was rationalized. Most of the reasons that gave rise to religious and other mythological forms of thinking have been slowly whittled away by the steady progress of science and reason. Dawkins' explanation of the nature of miracles and miraculous thinking simply assumes that there is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue. To my humanist and atheistic sensibilities, his approach is both obvious and gratifyingly simple. Magic is a good book, and a great addition to the library of any student interested in science or the natural world. It will make a great gift this holiday season. It is also a natural step on the, er, evolution of Richard Dawkins' recent literary contributions. His first eight books focused mostly within his field of evolutionary biology, either directly, via historical survey and narrative, or by virtue of his defenses against creationism. He then departed significantly from this course with the 2006 publication of The God Delusion. Next came The Greatest Show on Earth, an inspired collection and presentation of the evidences for evolution. Dawkins has clearly articulated a two-pronged approach to his craft as a promulgator of science education: affirmative presentation and explanation of the science, and a proactive attack on what he sees as the chief enemy of science: the proliferation of supernaturalism (chiefly religion). His forays into documentary filmmaking mirror this dual approach. The appearance of The Magic of Reality this year makes perfect sense to me because it beautifully embodies both messages. Having spoken loud and long in this vein, a book aimed at younger audiences makes perfect sense Let me end this review with a prediction. Dawkins is not done. I believe that within two years we will see a major television documentary release on the scale of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Dawkins has shown that he can command major audiences in his public speaking tours. He has appeared on Colbert, and his previous television documentaries have shown that his personal charm and commanding presence translate well into the visual medium. Cosmos has never been equaled in its popularity, reach or enduring appeal. Richard Dawkins will make that leap and produce a series for public television (and a US release) that will rival and perhaps even surpass Sagan's own "magic."

The Magic of Reality is a wonderful book. Dawkin's masterful prose is once again well deployed to popularize science. Unlike Dawkin's other books (except the God Delusion), this book is written for a wider and a younger audience. Dawkin's project is to convince readers that scientific explanations for the world have an inherent beauty and are far more fulfilling the other explanations. The books is structured in a formulaic manner in as much that every chapter begins with a questions which is followed by a non-scientific answer which is meant to be in sharp contrast with the rest of the chapter where Dawkins proceeds to answer the question scientifically. In effect Dawkins wants to convince the reader that "the only good reason to believe that something exists is if there is real evidence that it does" (15). He suggests that this can be done by "creating models of what might be real and then testing those models to see whether they successfully predict things" (16). Dawkins proceeds to introduce different definitions of magic and claims that science imbues the world with poetic magic. Ultimately, Dawkins wants to show readers that "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" (31). Never mind, I must add, that this beauty is a strange one for it is not inherent but it is attributed to facts, ideas, and theories once these are deemed to have explanatory power. I will briefly describe the contents of the book (spoiler alert!). Chapter 1 seems to answer who was the first person (no one; these distinctions are difficult to discern, parental generations and offspring always seem alike but we can notice difference when we compare points that are separated by many generations). Chapter 3 is about "why are there so many different kinds of animals?" (the answer is natural selection) & describes animals as "what am I looking at is an elaborate machine for passing on the genes that made it. I'm looking at a survival machine for genes. Next time you look in the mirror just think: that is what you are too" (75). Chapter 4 is "what are things made of" Here Dawkins discusses how Greece, China and India all came to belief that matter was composed of air, water, fire and earth. Until one ancient Greek Democritus thought they were composed of indivisible parts (atoms). Here Dawkins defines elements, compounds, isotopes, protons, etc. Chapter 5 is about why we have night and day, winter and summer. Seasons, Dawkins writes, are explainable by yearly orbiting of the Earth around the sun (at about 93 million distance), and the daily changes are explainable by the planets spinning round and round (103). When a part of the planet faces the sun they have day. The Earth revolves around the sun in a circle like ellipse but it is also on tilted axis of 23.5 degrees; thus the part of the Earth tilted towards the sun experiences summer. Chapter 6 is about what the sun is (a star where elements a produced). Chapter 7 is about "what is a rainbow", water bends light and as water droplets fall the ones they are replaced by bends light in a similar fashion thus to an observer a rainbow appears (he far end of the droplets behave as mirrors). Each colour bends differently and each droplets bends all light that pass through it; however, we only see one colour per raindrop. Chapter 8 is about "when and how did everything begin" (big bang). Chapter 9 addresses the question of whether "we are alone"; Dawkins speculates that life exists on "probably on millions of planets" (186). He also makes argument about traits we should expect to see (i.e. eyes). Chapter 10 is about Earthquakes. Later, Dawkins moves on to less scientific questions like Why do bad things happen (Chapter 11). This is mostly because being good or bad does not affect what happens to you. Chapter 12 is about miracles, here Dawkins talks about coincidences that may appear significant but actually must, by definition, occur quite commonly (i.e. thinking of someone and that person rings you up while ignoring all the times this has not happened). Phenomena that remains unexplained is not necessarily magic but rather it is a puzzle waiting to be solved. This is a book aimed at children or at readers with basic questions about basic things (although many well educated folk may have forgotten the reasons why some of these things occur (like rainbows)). The book is well written and the inclusion of myths at the beginning of most chapters provides a contrast with the scientific explanations (and the myths are also interesting in of off themselves). Ultimately, Dawkins wants to convince readers that "I hope you agree that the truth has a magic of its own. The truth is more magical - in the best and most exciting sense of the word - than any myth of made up mystery or miracle. Science, has its own magic: the magic of reality" (257). Dawkins does marshall a convincing set of explanations that show that science can be marvelous, exciting and poetic. However, in his zeal to maximize the poetry of reality, the book may be undervaluing other important aspects of our lives. Nevertheless, this is a wonderful read.

The Magic of Reality is not the first book by Richard Dawkins that I have read. His writing style is direct, clear and easily understood by non-academics. When I went to write a review on Amazon I was surprised that there were reviews with only one or two stars. Intrigued, I read through several of each type to see what people could possibly criticize about it. As I should have guessed, one repeated theme is that Dawkins is an atheist and is anti-organized-religion. Like myself, he was raised in Christianity and like me, he began to question its teachings as an early teen. The criticisms of his campaign against indoctrinating children in revealed religious beliefs come from committed religionists, some of whom had not even read the book or had read only a portion. Comments like, “I have heard that he wrote…” are not uncommon. My guess is that religious groups (organized or otherwise) have encouraged their faithful to write bad reviews on the general basis that Dawkins is an atheist and wants children to make up their own minds. These people are the victims of the very mind-control by organized religion that Dawkins is critical of. Having been raised that way myself I can personally attest that many religious groups advise their faithful not to read such writings because it may “mislead” them. In other words, they just might be persuaded by logic and reason, and the church may lose adherents. I would say that Magic is written for most all age and education levels. But many people complained that it was written in too simplistic a manner or that the author is talking down to the reader. The religionists complain that it is geared to sway youth away from their religious teachings. If leading them to reason and logic is doing that, then “yes” he is. Others say that they learned nothing from the book because it is just high school physics. The chapter explaining rainbows is cited as an example. I took high school physics and chemistry, so “yes” much of it was a review for me. But, although I knew that water particles in the air act as prisms to create a rainbow, I did not know exactly how it works. I did not know that light is reflected off of the back of the inside of each droplet and then refracted when it comes back out the front. I found that interesting. He also explains sub-atomic particles and quantum physics in lay terms that improved my understanding of those subjects. Dawkins is a distinguished Cambridge professor, writing for many readership levels, so he does write in this instance in a simple and thorough manner. I am sure that many readers have never taken physics in school or perhaps read a book explaining light refraction, the makeup of the atom or quantum mechanics. So “yes” each subject (chapter) is written on a very basic level, but he is not “talking down” to his reader. Another repeated complaint was that the paperback edition and the digital edition lack all the wonderful illustrations that accompany the text in the hardbound edition. I had read a digital edition, but nowhere in the book had I felt that some important content was missing because there were no pictures. So, I stopped by my local library to see what I had missed out on. There are a lot of colorful drawings and diagrams on virtually every page; some pages have multiple graphics – to the extent that there is not a lot of room left for the text. I believe that I would find all that colored ink distracting from the thought-content of the text. I understand that there are people who don’t like books without pictures, so I suspect that in order to appeal to as wide a readership as possible every subject/chapter is amply illustrated. I am glad that I read a text-only version. The writing flows smoothly and logically, and is fully understandable on its own. But if you’re a picture-book person, the graphics are quite well done and I am sure that they add to the enjoyment of the reading; get the hardbound version.

This book embodies the very nature of why Richard Dawkins is currently my favorite author. It's informative, it's clear-cut, it's intelligent, and it drips with logic and with reason. I consider myself very well-versed in the many topics that are covered in this book (astronomy, physics, biology - to name a few), but there have been several times so far (I'm not yet done reading it) when I've had "So THAT'S how that works!" moments. Do you live in the country and often see what appears to be a long, faint cloud in the sky overhead, but you're not sure if it might also be a long cluster of stars? The book explains that. Do you wonder what evidence we have for the Big Bang? The book explains that as well. And, it does so in such a way that adults and children can both enjoy and learn something from it. This book is not like Dawkins' other works such as "The God Delusion" or "The Greatest Show On Earth", which were all very technical and informationally complex books. Rather, this book is very clear and simple in how it presents it's points. Which, in all honesty, I found to be a nice break from my usual intake of scientifically and grammatically complicated books. As I read, I feel as though I could very-well be reading this to my child one day as a bedtime story (I wish I had this book when I was a kid). However, do not let that put you off (as it almost did to me), because even though the book is readable by a younger audience, it is also very profound, informational and in-depth. Now, I feel that I should avoid the slight urge to be sneaky, and instead be honest to those who may be concerned. The book does talk about Evolution; it does explain the topic in-depth, and it also ranks many major religious ideologies on the same mythological level as any other historical fairy-tale. Keep in mind, though, that this is not a book that bashes religion. Dawkins himself has stated that he has said what he needed to say about religion with "The God Delusion" and that this book will not try to push any anti-religious agenda. As a result, the book simply lists religious ideas casually among the rest of the world's mythologies - not paying it any special attention; not pushing it into the shadows. The only direct conflict the book has with religious teachings is when it comes to the topic of Evolution. However, it is my personal feeling that children - being that they are more or less the target audience - should be informed of the wonderous scientific progress that has been made in regard to biology. If you are a religious parent, it is of course your decision what you want your child to be exposed to in regard to facts. But please keep in mind that this book does not attempt to undermine whatever religious ideologies you may be instilling in your children. Rather, it simply presents evidence. It presents what we - as a collective society - know about the biology of living things, as well as the nature of the Universe itself. The book encourages us to be honest with ourselves and with our world. If you are sheltering your children from that, then you are not only being dishonest with them, but you are doing them a disservice in doing so. Not only because you're not clarifying the very idea of Evolution (to either be accepted or rejected), but because if that alone keeps you from purchasing this book, you're also keeping them from the many other wonderful bits of information that are contained within it's pages. But again, parents should do as they wish with their own children. For me personally, though, I am very grateful for this book and the incredible information it has to offer. It is a fascinating read.

Previously, I have reviewed "The God Delusion" and found it incredibly lacking. The reason some found it convincing was that they were unfamiliar with the arguments and thought that Dawkins knew them well. He doesn't. Of course, one can look at my review to see my reply to his "arguments." The Magic of Reality does not have anything new in argumentation. Nevertheless, I consider it the most dangerous book that he's written. Remember that earlier Richard Dawkins has said we shouldn't "indoctrinate" our children? Apparently, the new atheists get a free pass. "The Magic of Reality" is a book that could easily be a textbook and is recommended for young people who are Dawkins's main targets. Dawkins is in this book a brilliant writer. One can easily imagine hearing his voice as one reads it as Dawkins is a good speaker and a good writer generally. For instance, while I did not believe The Blind Watchmaker, I did think Dawkins made an argument that was much more persuasive than The God Delusion. (Okay. That might not be saying much.) I think there were basic flaws in the arguments, but it was a well-written and well thought-out argument. For this book, there is not the ranting going of The God Delusion, but I could not help but be reminded of The Green Book as talked about in C.S. Lewis's book "The Abolition of Man." In that case, a book on another subject was also being used to teach children philosophy and a child could go to do his lesson not learning much about grammar, but learning much about philosophy and already is a casualty in a war he had no idea was going on. My concern with this book is that The God Delusion was written for adults to persuade them to be atheists. This one is written for children before they start grappling with the big issues to teach them to be atheists in their thinking in advance. This is preparation for an atheistic worldview. There's no doubt that much of the science in this book is very good and very fascinating. I found several parts simply remarkable and I would not deny learning much about science from reading this book. Unfortunately, I also learned much about Dawkins and also with the realization that while he goes to great lengths to make sure that he's speaking accurately about science and can admit when he's out of his expertise in a scientific area, he does not grant the same courtesy to religion. Dawkins is not an expert in theology, textual criticism, historical evidence, or philosophy of religion, but yet he speaks about them anyway. It is my stance as a Christian that I will not comment on the scientific aspects of this work except as a layman. I do not claim to be an authority on science and I do not believe that Christians who are not trained in the science should comment on the sciences. Instead, we are to leave that to the scientists. We can evaluate arguments to an extent, but to do it effectively, we need to be reading in the relevant areas. Dawkins would probably agree that Christians who do not know about science should not argue over it and should not used arguments along the lines of "If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" However, Dawkins would not do the same with religion not realizing that the arguments he gives have been addressed by those more qualified than he and of course, Dawkins does not give any impression that they have been addressed. Let's start with the review itself. On page 13, Dawkins asks that in defining reality, "if we are only going to call something `real' if we can detect it directly with one of our five senses?" (Parts of this edited due to the mistake noted below on my part.) Page 19 does come back to this. For ideas like jealousy and joy, happiness and love, he says these are real but depend on our senses. The conclusion being that they depend on the brain which means that which is real is sensory or depends on the sensory for it being real. I would not seriously doubt that if something is detectable with the five senses, it is real. That is sufficient for its reality, but is it necessary. Dawkins does not give a reason why. He states that knowledge begins with what we sense, and I agree with that, but he does not go beyond that. His starting point and the end point are the same, although his starting point can be enhanced through tools and technology. Does this mean however that things that cannot be detected with our senses cannot be real? What about universals such as human nature or triangularity? What about moral truths and mathematical truths? What about love and jealousy and joy? Now on the last group, as said, Dawkins says that these are real, but that these are dependent on our brains for their existence. He does not explain this. In what way are these things real, especially given his earlier definition of real? If jealousy and joy cannot be detected by the five senses, then it would seem that Dawkins needs to change his definition. How do these things depend on the brain? We don't know. Dawkins doesn't tell us. Is this an epiphenomenon? Is it entirely material? Dawkins leaves it unclear. Is there a reality of such a thing as mind that interacts with the brain or is it all brain? The student does not know, but the problem is also that he doesn't know to ask either. These questions are not being discussed and the student has not learned science here as much as philosophy. Dawkins also says jealousy and joy could exist on other planets but only if they contain brains. No argument is given for this. It is merely an assertion, which is odd considering Dawkins's insistence on evidence for beliefs. Apparently, the rule is that all beliefs have to have evidence, except for beliefs of the new atheists. Dawkins also in this part describes three kinds of magic. The first he calls supernatural magic, and uses as examples fairy tales and miracles, a classic case of poisoning the well. Dawkins says he will address miracles later. For now, these two are tightly connected with no explanation. For those who are curious, the other kinds of magic are stage magic and what he calls poetic magic, the wonder that we feel at the universe. In describing stage magic, Dawkins tells about people who claim to be able to bend metal, stop clocks, or contact the dead as charlatans. Now it could very well be the case that all of them are. I have not examined them, but for the sake of argument being of a skeptical mindset, I will gladly grant that every case that has been examined thus far has proven to be false in someway. The problem is that it does not follow from this that there are no such works. It is no proof that psychic powers cannot be real or the dead cannot be contacted. An analogy could be shown from UFO's. Most people think that at least the majority of all UFO cases are serious mistakes of some sort. They do not believe the others even though they're not sure how to explain them. This is fine because any worldview has some difficulties explaining some matters and some UFO cases we'd have a hard time knowing what to say. However, if it was the case that all UFO cases were shown to be hoaxes or something of that sort, does that mean that Dawkins would say "Very well! We must concede we have absolute proof that there are no aliens out there!" Now realize that I am not saying necessarily that one can contact the dead or have psychic powers. I am saying that Dawkins cannot say that because the cases we have have been shown to be hoaxes or inconclusive, that we can conclude that the reality does not exist. It can justify our skepticism, but it cannot prove our skepticism. Unfortunately, the young student reading this does not know this. Naturally, I agree with Dawkins that it is a shame that some people scam others in this way. However, I also think it's a shame that students are being told what to think this way instead of a lesson on evaluating data and exactly what conclusions can be drawn. On page 23, Dawkins says the supernatural can never be a true explanation. The reason for this is because the supernatural is beyond natural explanation. It is beyond science and the scientific method that has caused a huge increase in knowledge. To say it is supernatural is to say we don't understand it and we'd better not even try. But this just begs the question. Why should it be assumed that everything has a "natural" explanation? It cannot be known by science or the scientific method, but neither can jealousy or joy which Dawkins admits are real. Neither can mathematical or moral truths or universals like triangularity. The argument assumes that all knowledge is scientific or can be discoverable by the scientific method, which itself is a knowledge claim that is not scientific or discoverable by the scientific method. Furthermore, science has increased our knowledge, but that knowledge is specifically scientific knowledge and what kind of knowledge would it be expected to improve upon? Science progresses differently than philosophy or theology since its subject matter is, well, matter. To do the necessary studies, you have to have better and better technology and to have better technology, you have to have better science, and on and on. Science and technology help build one another. Ptolemy could not have known about a particular planet without a telescope he did not have and the technology needed to be there to build it first as well as the leisure time and ability to build it. Philosophy and theology however rely more on foundations and the rest of the time is spent working out what those foundations mean. Plato and Aristotle are still arguing against one another. Neither school denies the other school exists, but both schools have different starting metaphysical principles and outworkings from those. For the sciences, the disputes are largely philosophical as well. There is probably little disagreement on data, but much interpretation on what the data means. For instance, some young-earth creationists point to the low level of moon dust on the moon as evidence of a young-Earth. Old-Earthers do not dispute that, but they do not interpret that data as meaning the Earth is young. They have another explanation. Old-Earthers who are not theistic evolutionists can likely agree on what fossils are left in the fossil record, but have different ideas on how to interpret the data. Also, the foundations of science are rooted in Christian theism as it was believed that since the universe came from a rational mind, then it could be understood rationally. Scientists who were "filling the gaps" did not see themselves as limiting God but rather in giving more glory to God. I'm of the belief that the idea of "God of the gaps" is a straw man position that has been created by atheists for Christians to defend themselves from when really, the Christian church has historically wished to fill in the gaps. (The retreat of a number of fundamentalists from academia in response to evolutionary theory is a sad example of what we ought not to do.) We have the same on page 31 again stating that evolution is a real explanation as a counter to a supernatural explanation. The assumption is that if there is an evolutionary explanation, there cannot be a supernatural one. (Although I question the so-called natural/supernatural dichotomy.) This does not follow. My stance on debate is that I am more than happy to grant macroevolution to the atheist. I think this was a great mistake of the Christian church in that we wanted to be reactionary to evolution rather than just saying "Wait and see what the evidence says and then respond." Evolution could be true and Jesus still rose from the dead. Evolution is at best an instrumental cause rather than an efficient cause. Dawkins has committed an either/or fallacy. (Interestingly, the paragraph where he derides the supernatural is the one quoted on the back of the book. Left out is the derision of the supernatural. Could it be because many parents would not buy it then?) At the start of chapter 2, Dawkins says he is aiming to give the best possible answers to questions, which is the answer of science. I'm sure that is the case for some questions, but it does not follow that it is for all. When we want to know if it is wrong to commit adultery, we do not use the sciences to determine. If we want to know what a line of Shakespeare means, science is not the way to answer the question. If we want to know what the square root of 4,096 is, we do not go to science. Dawkins is again poisoning the well giving students the idea that the best answer is always found in science and that in turn, the only questions that matter are scientific questions. (Note that in his debate in Mexico that Dawkins said that questions of a "Why?" sort are often meaningless questions. Dawkins also presents in chapter 2 a view about the Garden of Eden. He tells of two creation accounts. Naturally, he means Genesis 1 and 2, but he gives no argument that Genesis 1 and 2 should be seen as what he refers to as two versions. The former account is simply a cosmic account. The second account is a more in-depth account at one particular spot of creation with a focus on preparing us for chapter 3 and what follows. He also says that Adam and Eve ate the fruit acquiring knowledge, losing their innocence he supposes. The problem was not knowledge as Adam was to subdue the Earth which would include learning about it, but going apart from God. Dawkins tells us on page 52 that we all share a common ancestor. We know this because we all have some genes in common. This does not follow however. All cars have something in common, but it does not follow they all have a common ancestor. They do all have a common designer in that all cars are designed by men. All creatures having some genes in common could be because of a common ancestor or because of a common designer or it could be a sign of both. Unfortunately again, the student has the answer given to him before he even knows there is a relevant question. On page 74 and 75 Dawkins tells us that when we see an animal and when we look in the mirror we need to realize that we are looking at a survival machine for genes. One wonders what the moral implications will be for this if it is embraced. If I am just a survival machine, why should I care about these other machines provided I get my genes taken care of? As has been asked, why not rape and pillage and get those genes passed on? Others might not like it? Who cares? On page 95 after talking about microscopic organisms, Dawkins tells us that none of this information is included in so-called holy books given by an all-knowing god. In fact, none of them tell how big the universe is, or about gravity or electricity or any modern advances. If these were works of God, wouldn't we expect to see that in them? Well, no. I immediately think of Proverbs 25:2 where it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to find it out. I think God did not tell us these things because He wanted us to discover them on our own and do our homework. The things He did tell us are things that we could not know on our own or at least not know easily and things that were necessary for our salvation. Besides, do we expect Paul to be writing an epistle and then say in the middle "And in the 20th century since the first advent of Christ, expect a disease called AIDS that attacks something called the Immune System. One only wonders what Peter would have said to say about Paul's writings then! This was to be copied down for centuries without anyone having a clue what relevance it had to anything, a large distinction from that of prophecy such as that of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament. Dawkins would condemn many fundamentalists who think they are to find messages especially for them in the Bible, but he has done the exact same thing in thinking that the Bible should have been written with his time in mind if it came from God. Considering how in the time of the Bible paper was valuable and one would not write more than they had to, it is not a shock. Furthermore, prophecy is not meant to be just God showing off, but God showing who He is for the benefit of His people. Today that has been done in Christ and that message is the one to be given. Finally, what does that have to do with science? Nothing. Dawkins has made a theological claim in a book about science. If Dawkins was just wanting to write a science textbook, there would be no need to mention such a thing. No. Dawkins writes this with a goal in mind of getting students to be atheists. Now I think that is perfectly fine for him to do. He has all freedom to do that. I also have the freedom to write a response to what he has said. Parents also have the freedom to decide if they want their child to be taught atheism or science. The two are not identical. On page 123, Dawkins tells of how in the Hebrew account, YHWH created light on the first day, but did not create the sun until the 4th day and says that we are not told where the light came from on the first day. It is not mentioned that young-earthers, old-earthers, and theistic evolutionists who hold to the Inerrancy of Scripture all do have answers to this objection. Some may work and some may not, but they are there. The student does not know this. One could even say "Well it could be Genesis is not Inerrant, but that would not disprove Christian theism." To be sure, losing Inerrancy would change our approach to Scripture were it to happen, and for the record I am an Inerrantist, but it would not be the end of Christianity. Proving a contradiction in Genesis does not prove that the gospels and epistles are in error in all they say. At the start of chapter 7, Dawkins starts with telling about flood stories and begins with Gilgamesh and then says the story should be recognizable to children reared in Christian, Jewish, or Muslim countries. It's the story of Noah's Ark with one or two minor differences. For those unaware, let me tell some minor differences In Gilgamesh, the boat is not seaworthy. In Noah, it is. In Gilgamesh and in Noah, the length of time and flooding and receding is much different. In Gilgamesh, the flood takes place because the gods can't sleep. In Noah, it is for punishment of sin. In Gilgamesh, it is polytheistic. In Noah, it is monotheistic. In Gilgamesh, the hero gets immortality in the end. In Noah, the hero gets drunk. These are just basic differences. A whole list can be found here: [...] On page 208 and 209, Dawkins talks about earthquakes and uses Sodom and Gomorrah along with Jericho as examples. I would have no problem with these being the results of earthquakes. In this case, these would be second-class miracles in that the miracle was not the event itself but that the event happened when it did. Dawkins seems to think that if a natural explanation of something is found, then it can no longer be the action of God, but this does not follow. Dawkins also tells of how a real story could have eventually become the folk legend of Joshua, but his analogy is simply a telephone game. Were the accounts of the events written years afterwards? Dawkins says so, but he does not give a reason why. Unfortunately, the student has got a lesson on oral tradition and historiography, but not on science. He has also learned that lesson from someone who is not an authority. Finally, one eventually gets to the last chapter on miracles. What does this have to do with science? Who knows. Dawkins acts as if any miracle will destroy science. As he says on page 263, it would never be right to call something we cannot understand or explain a miracle. That would end discussion and further investigation. This does not follow and in fact, let us assume for the sake of argument that Jesus really did rise from the dead and did not do so by naturalistic means. To say "We will keep searching until we find the naturalistic means" is to say "We will search in futility." Because one wants a naturalistic means does not mean there is one. At the same time, because one wants a supernatural explanation does not mean that there is one. What we need is to be open to miraculous and non-miraculous explanations. On page 254, Dawkins says miracles would be disturbing to science since that would involve breaking a law of nature. However, while I do not agree with the definition of breaking the laws of nature, does this not entail that there are laws of nature still? If I pick up a box, I have gone against gravity in a sense, but it does not mean I have violated science. God just has more means to do things than I do. The laws of nature can be intact and still allow for miracles. In fact, it is because we believe in laws of nature that we know about miracles. How so? A miracle is seen as an exception to that which is "natural." The reason we believe a virgin birth would be a miracle would be because we know that it takes sex naturally to make a baby. The reason we consider the resurrection of Christ to be a miracle is because we know dead people naturally stay dead. Those who believe in miracles do not dispute scientific facts. We know that water does not instantly become wine. We know that it takes sex to make a baby. We know people don't walk on water naturally. We know dead people stay dead. The big shock is also that the ancient people knew that too! That is why they recorded these as miracles. That they believed in these miracles is not because they were ignorant of science. Certainly they did not know all we know about science, but even if they could not explain the interaction between the molecules in one's feet and that in water to explain how someone could not walk on water, they knew that someone could not. They recognized these as miracles because they knew these facts already even if they didn't know the main details of these facts. They buried their dead because they knew their dead were staying dead. Joseph sought to divorce Mary because he knew what it took to make a baby and he knew he had not done that. The only way you could have exceptions then is if there is a natural order. If there was no natural order, there could be no miracles because all would be random. It is only because there is a natural order that there are miracles. Dawkins's argument against miracles is Hume. There is no mention that pretty much every Christian philosopher and their mother has commented on Hume. There is no mention that Hume said that past experience cannot be used to prove future events. If you release a stone and it falls 1,000 times, that will not prove it will fall the 1,001st time. If that is the case, then it would seem Hume himself has destroyed any basis for trusting the laws of science. Of course, Hume was sure it would fall, but he was making a claim on how that could be known, or rather not known. The answer to Hume is that he was essentially begging the question. Hume assumes that all has occurred naturally and we know this because miracles have not occurred. How do we know that they have not occurred? Because all has happened naturally. The question of if a miracle has taken place is a historical question. The question of if they can is a philosophical and theological question. Neither is in the domain of science. On page 262, Dawkins describes the turning of water into wine saying it only occurs in one gospel, which is true enough, but then says all four gospels were written long after the events they describe and not one of them by an eyewitness, so it is safe to conclude that they are not accurate. No mention is made that the history of people like Alexander the Great was written centuries after and not by eyewitnesses. No mention is also made that Dawkins's own claim is disputed, notably by someone like Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses." Again, the student has been given a lesson on historiography and not science, and Dawkins is not a historian. As I finished the book, I pondered that the title is about how we know what's really true, but Dawkins did not tell us that. Dawkins no where gives an epistemology. He affirms the scientific method, but does not say how we'd know it to be valid, especially for truths that are not scientific. Dawkins does not really define what it means to be true either. One could say there is a close parallel between that and real, but that needs to be explained. No doubt, as I said, much of the science is good and fascinating to read, but the parts I highlighted here are those that show Dawkins has something different in mind than just teaching science, something he would condemn by Christians. I recommend we need to follow C.S. Lewis's advice here. Lewis wrote once that what needs to be done is that the main authorities on academic matters need to be Christians. They do not need to be Christians necessarily writing apologetics works, as good as those are, but Christians just wishing to pass on knowledge. A Christian can write a book on how to do history without seeking to show his Christianity at all. He can write on doing medicine without having to quote Scripture. He can write on astronomy without having to talk about the grandeur of God. In fact, I would prefer he write in those ways so it can be that he is not writing seeking to tell readers what to think but how to think and when it comes out that he is a Christian, well the community realizes Christians can be great thinkers. What if it was the case that all best-selling books on subject matters like this were by Christians? What would it mean if we could re-enter the academy in that regards and be the authorities not on the details of the matter but on how to do the work of the matter. A Christian is the one who knows the most facts about medicine. A Christian is the one who has the most knowledge of how to best use a spectroscope. A Christian is the one who best knows how to do a sum in geometry. The response to this book then is not to run from the academy. It is to enter it with full force. It is to meet the enemy head-on and engage. Dawkins has done in fact in a sense what we should have been doing. Christians are to be in pursuit of knowledge just because it is knowledge. This is God's world and we need to know all that there is to know about it. We also need to be educating our children on the value of their minds and encouraging them to read everything they can on what interests them, and read both sides. I want my children to read Dawkins, and I want them to read what disagrees with Dawkins so they can know what to choose and make an informed decision. If we believe the facts are with us, and they are, we need not be afraid. Share this

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True by Richard Dawkins "The Magic of Reality" is the latest contribution by evolutionary-biologist icon Richard Dawkins. Professor Dawkins is on a mission of education and in this enlightening book he reaches a younger audience by introducing science like only he can. In one of the most beautifully illustrated science books, he takes the reader on a ride on a wide-range of topics of interest that masterfully navigates between myth and what is real. This mesmerizing 272-page book is composed of the following twelve chapters: 1. What is reality? What is magic? , 2. Who was the first person? , 3. Why are there so many different kinds of animals? , 4. What are things made of? , 5. Why do we have night and day, winter and summer? , 6. What is the sun? , 7. What is a rainbow? , 8. When and how did everything begin? , 9. Are we alone? , 10. What is an earthquake? , 11. Why do bad things happen? ,and 12. What is a miracle? Positives: 1. A wonderful book on science that is accessible to a younger audience without compromising the science lovers in all of us. Bravo! 2. It's a book written by the great Richard Dawkins, so you know the quality goes in before the product goes out. 3. A true labor of love. The educator in Professor Dawkins comes out and now even our children will benefit from his prodigious knowledge. 4. One of the most beautifully illustrated books you will ever find. Great quality binding only matched by its substance. 5. Science knowledge conveyed in a brilliant, lucid manner. 6. Great format. In each chapter, Professor Dawkins illustrates clearly the difference between the wishful and what is "really" real. 7. What a wonderful way to learn about science. Great practical examples throughout this beautiful book. A ride of knowledge, hop on! Readers of all ages will enjoy this great book. 8. Even-handed and pleasant tone throughout. 9. A wide range of fascinating science topics in the hands of the master. 10. Great wisdom throughout, "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". 11. The book cleverly goes from myth to reality. 12. The concept of magic in three tiers: supernatural, stage and poetic. 13. Evolution in the hands of the master. Awesome. 14. Was there ever a first person? Insightful indeed. The best illustrated example I've ever read. 15. Great explanation on DNA. 16. Clever examples throughout, one of the many strengths of this book. 17. A wide range of fascinating science topic in the hands of a master. 18. The three common phases of matter. 19. The importance of the scientific method. 20. The concept of empty space...I finally get it. 21. The importance of carbons, organic chemistry. 22. Telling that there are no myths to describe atoms... 23. So what causes the difference between winter and summer...find out. 24. The illusion of relative movement. 25. The great Isaac Newton. Gravity, lights...we are not worthy. 26. The difference between mass and weight. 27. A great illustration of how far stars are from us. 28. How coal is created. 29. Differences between stars and planets. 30. Energy and the sun. 31. What determines the size of a star? Find out. 32. The epic of Gilgamesh. Interesting. 33. Rainbow as an illusion and how they are formed. 34. Lights as vibrations...I see. 35. Steady state versus the Big Bang theory. 36. How we determine the distance between anything in the universe. 37. How we determine age. 38. Spectral barcoders...neat. 39. Methods for detecting planets. 40. The keys for life on other planets. 41. Plate tectonics illustrated, wonderful. 42. The speed of continents, sea-floor spreading... 43. Myths debunked. 44. Practical explanation for probability. 45. Great examples of evolution...parasites. 46. How the immune system works. Fascinating. 47. Miracles what they are. 48. David Hume's irrefutable logic regarding miracles and many great examples. 49. Absolutely kindles the fire of learning. 50. An excellent gift for all occasions. Negatives: 1. The book is intended for a younger audience and covers briefly a lot of topics. If you are expecting an in-depth analysis, this is not the book for you. 2. No bibliography. In summary, a fabulous book for all to enjoy. I usually limit my purchases to Kindle books because of the convenience but I'm glad I was "forced" to buy this book in hardcover binding. It's a beautiful book inside and out. Substance finally matches style and it's a science book for all to enjoy and for years to come. There is a sense of awe, a poetic magic for reality. For all his knowledge, Professor Dawkins is humbled by what little we do know and how much more we need to find out about the world. It's precisely this drive to know more and that hunger for knowledge that I always wanted to convey to my children. Finally, I have a book that expresses my sentiments and I have Richard Dawkins to thank!

A wonderful introduction to scientific thinking. A good text for the classroom!

In "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True" author Dr. Richard Dawkins says in chapter one "I want to show you that 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 understand how it works. Next to the true beauty and magic of the real world, supernatural spells and stage tricks seem cheap and tawdry by comparison. The magic of reality is neither supernatural nor a trick, but -- quite simply -- wonderful. Wonderful, and real. Wonderful because real." Not only does he have a correct metaphysics -- a sacred but secular view of reality, he has a correct epistemology. Unlike most intellectuals throughout history, he explicitly supports the evidence of the senses -- "...how do we know things exist, even in the present? Well, our five senses - sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste -- do a pretty good job of convincing us that many things are real: rocks and camels, newly mown grass and freshly ground coffee, sandpaper and velvet, waterfalls and doorbells, sugar and salt." He then covers how tools such as microscopes, telescopes, fossils, and models enhance the use of our senses. Beyond sense perception, he implicitly supports concept formation and logical integration throughout the rest of the book through scientific demonstration. He covers evolution, atomic theory, the relationship of the sun to planet earth, the creation of the universe, and the nature of our planet Earth by looking at the following questions: Who was the first person, why are there so many different kinds of animals, what are things made of, why do we have night and day, winter and summer, what is the sun, what is a rainbow, when and how did everything begin, are we alone, what is an earthquake, and why do bad things happen? As he makes his case through through concrete evidence, he contrasts his scientific approach with age old myths from cultures throughout the world that attempted to explain natural phenomena through supernatural means. He closes his final chapter "What Is A Miracle" and the book with: "If present-day science encounters an observation, or an experimental result, that it cannot explain, then we should not rest until we have improved our science so that it can provide an explanation...But don't ever be lazy enough -- defeatist enough, cowardly enough -- to say 'It must be supernatural' or 'It must be a miracle'. Say instead that it's a puzzle, it's strange, it's a challenge that we should rise to...And, until we have found a proper answer to the mystery, it's perfectly OK simply to say, 'This is something we don't yet understand, but we're working on it.' Indeed, it is the only honest thing to do. "Miracles, magic, and myths -- they can be fun, and we have had fun with them throughout this book. Everybody likes a good story, and I hope you enjoyed the myths with which I began most of my chapters. But even more I hope that, in every chapter, you enjoyed the science that came after the myths. I hope you agree that the truth has a magic of its own. The truth is more magical -- in the best and most exciting sense of the word -- than any myth or made-up mystery or miracle. Science has its own magic: the magic of reality." Surprisingly, given the width and depth of the topics presented here, "The Magic of Reality" is a quick and fun read. Bravo to Dr. Dawkins for presenting the material in a highly accessible, well-written manner.

Richard Dawkins tienen muchos libros sobre divulgación científica, pero este libro es una obra de arte. Las ilustraciones son espectaculares, la impresión es muy buena y tiene cuidados todos los detalles. Es de tapa dura lo que se agradece. El libro es un repaso sobre preguntas básicas de ciencia, que el autor va explicando con un lenguaje muy sencillo a través de ejemplo y las ilustraciones. Altamente recomendable.

De linguagem muito simples com analogias ótimas! Ele vai respondendo cientificamente perguntas importantes e interessantes do mundo sempre com a visão científica. Recomendo.

Definitely buy, if not for your children, then for yourself. Don't pay attention to one-star reviews, they will reflect the reviewers' religious beliefs and not the worthiness of The Magic of Reality. What will you tell your geeky children the next time they pester you about where life came from, how the universe started and why bad things happen to us? For thousands of years the only answers we had came from myths and other made up stories, but now we have a much much better way of explaining things with science. Dawkins' book is a stab at putting together the scientific answers to these and a few more questions, like what are rainbows and stars, how come there are so many different forms of life and so on. It doesn't cover every single question a fairly intelligent tweenager may ask, but it has a pretty good go at it. You could say that most of it is covered anyway in school course books, but The Magic of Reality has a new angle or two. First of all, it Dawkins precedes most scientific explanations with the corresponding myths. For example the chapter on the real causes of earthquakes comes introduced by the Japanese myth of a giant catfish. The not so hidden agenda is to show that myths, including those from the Bible, don't really explain anything and are just so stories. Don't be fooled by the apparent sympathy towards such folktales. Dawkins also shows quite clearly that some of them are not just harmless treasures of our more ignorant past but can still actively poison our minds. Second, it comes with an added value of fantastic illustrations that are easily the book's strongest selling point. In the age of kindle, this is a book to have a hardcover copy of on your shelf. Although it may be useful as either an introduction to science for children or a revision for older readers like me, it doesn't cover all the fields and the view of science and scientific progress is somehow simplified (but not dumbed down). For a history of science with all its naughty and nasty bits grab a copy of A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It is also my personal opinion that it doesn't quite capture the mind-boggling awesomeness of reality the way Robin Ince did in his TED talk, but sadly Ince hasn't written it down yet.

This book really is an introduction to the world of science, and how science answers questions that were previously answered using magical or supernatural explanations. Like a US reviewer said, when I was younger, I believed in supernatural explanations and phenomena. As a curious lad, I was eager to soak up any information that I could, and some of those explanations sounded pretty plausible. The only problem (and it was a big one) was that I didn't have a gauge for how reliable one explanation was compared to another. Metaphorically, neither did humanity until science came around. In both cases (mine and humanity's), science provided the tool for which to measure how reliable an explanation was in relation to another. How to compare two otherwise equal explanations based on explanatory and predictive power based on reliable data. This book pits common stories of creation and causation on a whole rage of topics, from the origins of species, to what we are made of, to the cycles of seasons and day/night. Most of the chapters start off with a "magical" explanation that is based on religion. All religions are represented here, including ancient and/or tribal religions. The book then moves on to explaining the phenomenon in question using simple, logical science. I've rated this book five stars, but for two important audiences, it won't be. First, for experienced scientists or science readers, this book will be pretty low-level. It's aimed at people who aren't familiar with science and its explanations (e.g., Dawkins cites ~20% of Europeans don't know how long it takes us to orbit the sun, and why- this is the book for them). It would also work well for younger readers. I can see ages 12+ absorbing this book quite well. In fact, that's around the time it would probably be most helpful (12-14), as it outlines how science works and why its explanations are superior to those of magical or supernatural causes. I enjoyed reading the book myself, but found very little of it new. Still, I'm glad that I have it as a reference for kids and adults who aren't as familiar with the science presented in this book. Second, this book will not be very popular with devoutly religious people. Dawkins once more takes square aim at the major religions, pointing out how unlikely some of their "stories" are. In particular, the last chapter is a chapter on miracles, where Dawkins adopts Hume's stance on miracles. They are likely to be true if the alternate explanation (that they aren't true, that say, 500K people mass hallucinated someone parting the water of San Francisco Bay) is more likely to be false than the miraculous explanation. Of course, there are no such examples, leading Dawkins to claim that miracles are very likely false. In an important way, I agree strongly with the point he is trying to make. In essence, coincidences that seem miraculous (e.g., dreaming of an uncle the day that uncle dies) are really just the product of odds we're not good at calculating, recognizing, or even understanding. That's a good point, and well worth making. But I think he could have done more by directly challenging some kinds of magical explanations (e.g., psychic powers) more directly, including evidence from neuroscience. Instead, his choice of attacking religious stories represents a confrontational choice of topic that is going to drive some people away from this book. I don't disagree with the need and value of challenging any belief, but I think that some of the people who could most benefit from this book will simply be turned off by it. I hope they aren't, but I'm guessing they will be. Which is too bad. Because, as Dawkins says, there is a certain poetic magic to reality once you understand it more. From the immense size of the universe to the evolution of minute structures, I've certainly found that scientific, reality-based explanations are every bit as majestic, awesome, and satisfying as magical or supernatural explanations ever could be. Science really is far and away the best tool for understanding the universe around us, and ourselves in it. Science really is an almost magical invention (in the poetic and metaphoric sense) that has allowed us to discover and explain things not only beyond what we thought possible, but also beyond what we ever imagined existed! If that's not magic enough for you, I don't know what could be! Magic and myths might be cool, but the reality of universe is even cooler.

Conoscevo già il libro l'ho regalato, Dawkins è tra i miei preferiti e sono d'accordo con lui su molti suoi modi di vedere, è forse un libro per ragazzi ma io, che non so niente di astrofisica, ho capito cosa sono i "red-Shift". Stupendo, va divulgato