9 Replies to “Richard Dawkins evolves into entertainment.

  1. 1
    NZer says:

    Um, perhaps Dawkins’ science only has entertainment value?

  2. 2
    GilDodgen says:

    One should feel pity for this poor fellow, who wasted his life on a lie, did much damage to legitimate science, and undoubtedly convinced many others to follow in his footsteps.

  3. 3
    Ilion says:

    “The Magic of Reality”, huh? Interesting; or, at least, how odd.

    Isn’t this fellow always accusing Christians (and Jews) of being chasers-after-magic — despite the historical fact that Judeo-Christianity always empties of magic the worldviews of those peoples which embrace it?

  4. 4
    Heinrich says:

    Ilion – it looks like Dawkins is using “magic” to mean something wonderous, whereas you seem to be meaning mysterious or supernatural forces.

    I’m sure Dawkin’s argument will be that what seems magic, i.e. the product of mysterious or supernatural forces, has a non-supernatural (or mysterious) explanation, but that the wonder still remains.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    His last book’s title, The Greatest Show On Earth, somewhat matches this book’s title, ‘The Magic of Reality’. Both titles allude to fantasy-land type scenarios. One being a Circus, which neo-Darwinism certainly is, the other being a Alice and Wonderland detachment from reality, which, once again, neo-Darwinism certainly is.

    Perhaps the first line of his book should read:

    ‘LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, CHILDREN OF ALL AGES, TONIGHT FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT, I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CENTER RING’;

    or ONCE UPON A TIME IN A LAND FAR FAR AWAY;

  6. 6
    AussieID says:

    “‘The Magic of Reality’, which uses stunning words and pictures …”

    Anyone have any idea what ‘stunning words’ will be chosen by Dawkins to present this magical realm?

    This could be an interesting discussion!

  7. 7
    ciphertext says:

    Anyone have any idea what ‘stunning words’ will be chosen by Dawkins to present this magical realm? — #5 AussieID

    I’m leaning towards either Abracadabra, or Hocus Pocus. Those are the most likely utterances to be heard that evening. 🙂

  8. 8
    Gregory says:

    “Richard Dawkins evolves into entertainment.” – Thread Title

    Not sure how this qualifies as ‘evolution’. Millions of years are not involved, R. Dawkins is a population of 1 and it has been ‘entertaining’ to have him in the ‘science, philosophy, religion’ dialogue from the get-go, if oftentimes distracting and not always productive for the good guys and gals. Could you please clarify the intended meaning of your title re: usage of ‘evolves’?

    Thanks,
    Gregory

  9. 9
    Clive Hayden says:

    Heinrich,

    I’m sure Dawkin’s argument will be that what seems magic, i.e. the product of mysterious or supernatural forces, has a non-supernatural (or mysterious) explanation, but that the wonder still remains.

    Nature is itself a mystery, it is no argument against a supernatural mystery to invoke another.

Leave a Reply