E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe trailer for "The Magic of Reality" shows off some iPad tablet tricks.
For decades, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has worked to separate myth and religion from hard-headed facts, through science books such as "The Greatest Show on Earth" as well as philosophical tracts such as "The God Delusion." But until now, he's mostly been talking to the grown-ups. In a new work titled "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True," Dawkins goes after the younger set as well.
"Magic" is notable for three reasons:
- It casts the search for the explanations behind natural phenomena as a progression from supernatural stories to natural reasoning, throwing biblical stories in the same bin with outdated tales of Egyptian sky gods and Norse deities. (Would you expect anything less from Dawkins?)
- Dawkins argues that the scientific explanations for the origins of our planet or the reasons for a rainbow can hold as much wonder as any poetic passage from Genesis. "The truth is more magical — in the best and most exciting sense of the word — than any myth or made-up mystery or miracle," he writes. "Science has its own magic: the magic of reality."
- Perhaps most intriguingly, "The Magic of Reality" takes advantage of the magic of technology in a tablet version created for Apple's iPad. The 678-megabyte iPad edition costs less than the 272-page book ($13.99 vs. a list price of $29.99, which is being widely discounted). But in addition to providing the full text, the e-book literally puts Dave McKean's scores of illustrations into motion. It also offers more than a dozen games, interactive graphics, videos and audio clips to click on.
My favorite clickables include a chamber that lets you turn up the heat and the pressure on a solid/liquid/gas to see Boyle's law at work (you can even slosh the liquid around by shaking the iPad) ... a graphic that lets you use virtual prisms, lenses and slits to play with on-screen rainbows (and illustrate how a spectrograph works) ... a game that lets you breed frogs for optimal leg length (too bad you have to kill off six frogs in every generation) ... and a series of virtual photographs that trace evolution backwards into the mists of time (which plays off a concept Dawkins used in an earlier book about evolution, "The Ancestor's Tale").
Each chapter of the book focuses on an age-old question, ranging from "What is the sun?" and "What is an earthquake?" to "Why do bad things happen?" and "What is a miracle?" Sometimes, Dawkins ends up shrugging his shoulders. For example, after noting that time and space itself are thought to have begun with the big bang 13.7 billion years ago, he adds: "Don't ask me to explain that, because, not being a cosmologist, I don't understand it myself."
And don't ask Dawkins to accept any supernatural explanation for natural phenomena, unless you want a tongue-lashing: "If you claim that anything odd must be 'supernatural' you are not just saying you don't currently understand it; you are giving up and saying that it can be never understood," he writes.
Biologist Richard Dawkins talks about "The Magic of Reality" on BBC "Newsnight."
Is "The Magic of Reality" the consummate children's book about science? I'm hesitant to go that far, partly because Dawkins is so militant about going after Judeo-Christian beliefs. "As it happens, we know that lots of fiction has been made up about this particular preacher called Jesus," he writes. Religious families might feel threatened by Dawkins' preachiness, while non-religious families might wonder what all the fuss is about. I wonder whether "The Magic of Reality" would pass muster as a public-school science textbook, in light of Supreme Court rulings that say the government should not be actively involved in opposing religion.
Beyond those qualms, there are lots of intriguing scientific topics that Dawkins just had to pass up, ranging from the workings of the brain to the nature of dark energy and dark matter. Think of "Magic" as a jumping-off point for a young adult's scientific inquiry, rather than an all-encompassing reference work.
To Dawkins' credit, he acknowledges that there are still wide gaps in our understanding of the cosmos:
"There is much that remains deeply mysterious, and it is not likely that we will ever uncover all the secrets of a universe as vast as ours; but, armed with science, we can at least ask sensible, meaningful questions about it and recognize credible answers when we find them. We don't have to invent wildly implausible stories; we have the joy and excitement of real scientific investigation and discovery to keep our imaginations in line. And in the end that is more exciting than fantasy."
I might quibble with Dawkins' perspective on the roles that imagination and spirituality play in making sense out of reality, but his central point is that we shouldn't let our beliefs hold back the search for truth. And to that, I say amen.
More readings in science and religion:
- Stephen Hawking says God's not needed. So what?
- How to teach science to the pope
- Science with the stars
- Gospels of science
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
The reality of magic and god is that neither exists--both are the creation of imagination and that's fine for magic but nasty for religion to create mythological 'entities' to brainwash the minds of men and women and children
I wish they would take the magic out of evolution and show it for what it really is.... a fairytale for grown people...
I find it hard to believe that people actually still believe in evolution, even after all the archeology evidence that proves the bible is correct.
the red sea crossing was found, and egyption chariots were found stung along for over a mile long at the bottom.
Mt. Sinai was found with tons of evidence that fits perfectly to what the bible says about it.
Soddom and Gamorah
I could go on an on...over 23,000 digs and none have dissproved anything from the bible but most have only proved it to be correct even further.
Evolution... what do you see in real life...
I see a dog have puppies... and they may be different color or builds... but they are ALWAYS a DOG!!! I have never seen a 1/2 dog 1/2 cat species...
So they have to come up with a MAGIC ingredient to make it work... you need TIME...
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS!
that is how they make a dog into a non dog...
of course there is NO EVIDENCE to support this fairy tale for adults...
they can draw lots of pretty graphs or trees of life... but that is all they got...
Is it really too hard to say that all of creations is extreemly complex? and looks like it is intelligently designed???
my 2 cents...
Jonathan
I wouldn't give you 2 cents for that.
do you want my paypal address to send that over? haha
Jonathan's not sure about that whole "heliocentrism" nonsense either, since no one has yet directly observed the earth revolving around the sun.
The Bible is a fairy tale mirrored after the true stories from the real Gods of Egypt.
All the stories of the Bible from the Red Sea crossing to Mt. Sinai and Soddom and Gamorah actually come from the writings of the Egyptian Gods who were forsaken by the Christian church in order to steal money from the gullible.
The Egyptians knew that evolution was real as you can see it everyday when puppies are born they inherit traits from their parents and they have new mutations that can either help or hinder them. Those that mutate in beneficial ways are more successful and go on to have more puppies.
Ignorance of evolution is a great way to prove that you are a lying scumbag!
@Jonathan-1728701
I'm certainly not denying you your beliefs, but you are exactly the type of person that needs to separate fact from fiction.
Just about everything you've said in your post is not true at all! No one has found the "Red Sea Crossing Point" as you say has been found.
The Bible was written by PEOPLE in ancient times and so because a real place is mentioned, you immediately take that as proof that the stories told in the Bible are true as well? Come on! That's "faith", which is fine for you to have, but PLEASE don't call your "faith" fact, when you have no actual facts, only innuendo, circumstantial evidence, and supposition.
Evolution is a FACT. It has indisputable scientific evidence that has time and time again proven correct. Now, you may read this and say "No, that's a bunch of bull.", but you'd be saying that in the face of overwhealming scientific proof. So, in the end, you "believe" that evolution is not true. But, that does not make it so.
It's sad that you can actually say "of course there is NO EVIDENCE to support this fairy tale for adults..." because that statement is completely false. You just choose not to believe it.
Again, your beliefs are your own and no one can tell you that you are wrong in what your faith tells you. But science is a different issue...there is fact and there is myth. The Bible says that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, when absolutely EVERY geolocial survey and many other related sciences such as carbon dating show conclusively that this is false.
Yo Johnny!
You are awe inspiring. The level of denial you display is impressive. Does it hurt? I mean the cognitive dissonance you must experience , woo weee I coun't take it, You have STONES!
Johnny - the red sea crossing thing has an explination; high tide low tide
Jonathan,
How about some crazy from things in the bible?
I have yet to meet a snake that could talk.
I have never seen an angel.
I have yet to see someone remove a rib and turn it into a fully functioning human being.
It's impossible for 2 people to create a self sustaining population.
And that isn't even going into the straight up contradictions:
"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)
And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39)
"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30)
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
Just my 2 cents
Steve
If the fact that the Bible mentions real places proves that the entire Bible is true, then the fact that Hitler was a real person proves that everything in the movie Inglourious Basterds actually happened.
"I see a dog have puppies... and they may be different color or builds... but they are ALWAYS a DOG!!! I have never seen a 1/2 dog 1/2 cat species..."
Jonathan, you see only what you want to see. Evolution is happening all around us. Creatures have to continue to evolve due to changes that are constantly taking place.
That dog you see now is not the same as it was when it first evolved. Over time, to adapt to those changes in regard to weather, landscape, predation and what it would choose for its next meal, it needed to change, too.
There is some truth to the bible, particularly in Genesis regarding that we are made from the "dirt." That "dirt" is actually remnants of the elements that come from stars. We are made up of billions upon billions of atoms - again, that come from stars.
Hydrogen and helium are the two of the simplest that form stars. Then things become complex. When a star explodes or goes supernova, those elements spread far and wide in the universe; they go on to form more stars or planets.
That's as technical as I will get; anymore might confuse you. ;-)
Jonathan, if you understood what the theory of evolution actually says, you would know why your example about dogs sounds so ignorant to people who do.
And if you understood logic, you would know that confirmation of some historical occurences in the Bible does not prove that every word must be literally true, even to the point of rejected the last 150 years of science.
Rofl... I expected to get a bunch of comments like this... I think it shows that you are dumb on purpose.
They have found the red sea crossing with a string of egyption chariots strung together for over a mile long... (do the research, or better yet, Ill give you the lat and longe and you can go see for yourself... if ya got a scuba tank)
and yes, the did find Sodom... and it was nothing but brimstone...
I mention these not to say therefore everything in the bible is TRUTH, but to show that it is historically accurate... now go and search the rest of the bible and see if it is all TRUE.
and there have been 23,000 archeological digs all testing the bible... none have disproven it... but most have confirmed it...
have than been said, I think it qualifys as a historical set of books! and is accurate!
the people who wrote the bible were from many different cultures and times... written in multiple languages Greek, Hebrew, etc.
man cant predict the future with 100% accuracy... but if God know the end from the beginning and inspires certain men to write down some of his thoughts... its a no brainer!
This is what Voddie Baucham says:
I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”
Jonathan, of course much of the Bible is true. After all, most of them were trying to be accurate, so they should often succeed. But that says absolutely zero about the parts that have not been tested, especially since the "Bible" did not even exist until they brought together a diversity of documents many centuries later.
I'm glad you agree that the evidence grows stronger for something the more times it is tested, because evolution has been tested more times than the Bible, and it has ALWAYS been supported.
Jonathan, since you seem to understand dogs, perhaps you ought to think about how the various breeds of dogs we are familiar with have been developed over the years. There are now new (and controversial) breeds such as the Peke-a-poo, schnoodle, labra-doodle, and other non-traditional combinations which may, if continually rebred and accepted, become as familiar with those we know now.
That's how evolution happens, over time and many generations, not because your dog would suddenly give birth to kittens.
I dont care how many times you breed diffrerent types of dogs... it will still be a dog!
that is my point...
Science is something that you can observe, test, and demonstrate...
can you demonstrate a dog becoming a non dog? NO...
you can BELIEVE that over millions of years that dogs will do something that the dogs we see now cant do... but that is not science... that would be faith or religion...
get my drift?
Jock -
so evolutionists say this all the time...
a species can change into a new type of species through benifitial mutations... but never list any...
and 2nd... a mutation is a scrambling of information that already exists in the genes...
you cant get "NEW" information from a mutation...
so where did all this information come from??? and if you cant get NEW information from a mutation... how do these species keep evolving and getting smarter???
Jonathan: "so where did all this information come from???"
First if all, point mutations and "scrambling" of the existing genes does produce genetic variation for evolution to act upon. But that is not enough for the evolution of all life, because some species have way more DNA than others.
There are many ways that organism can increase the amount of DNA, the simplest being gene duplication, but sometimes an organism will double the complete genome, which then provides almost infinite opportunities for new genes to evolve.
Jonathan: "you can BELIEVE that over millions of years that dogs will do something that the dogs we see now cant do..."
NO. That is NOT what evolution says. Evolution occurs by dogs and organisms doing exactly what they always do: grow and reproduce. Evolution does not say that that one species gives birth to a different species. EVER. That would be preposterous. The changes required to make one species into another accumulate slowly over thousands of generations.
And dogs do provide an example of how this could happen. Most dog breeds have developed over only the last couple of hundred years. In that time we have produced animals as different as a Mastiff and a Chihuahua. If we found two animals that different in the wild, we would automatically consider them different species. We don;t do so because it has happened so fast the genetics are still very similar, and because it would be politically incorrect (i.e. the creationists would have a conniption fit). But if that much difference can accumulate in just 200 years, imagine how much they could change in 10,000 years. Or 10 million?
THAT is what evolution is. No more; no less. There is nothing in the fossil record that shows organisms evolving any faster than we have observed in modern dogs or finches. And usually it is much slower, because dogs have been abnormally selected very intensively.
The evolution idiots have weighed in, and the number of them is astonishing. God created all that exists, despite the rantings of the world renowned idiot richard dawkins and his like-minded followers of evil.
Happy Easter to all of my Christian bretheren. Our savior Jesus Christ is risen!!!
most the the famous philosophers are known for their metaphysical ideas such as soul, spirit and life after death. guess he is not to familiar with that concept. we still can not explain what happened before the big bang it just magically happened for no reason. ah the beauty of science "if i cant see it i must not exist" thankfully quantum physics is starting to put these people in their place!
He is very familiar with all of those subjects. But those are religious concepts that require faith, and therefore different people have different opinions.
The Big Bang theory says nothing about where the universe came from; only that it was once very small -- which there is a fair bit of evidence for. Science does not make up stories for things it can't explain. That is for religion to do.
What People?
The big bang theory hasn't been explained yet. Theory is just that....theory
K Tate, there is much in the Bible that still has to be proven as fact. That will be hard for you to understand as you follow your religion blindly.
I have a question based on this quote.
Each chapter of the book focuses on an age-old question, ranging from "What is the sun?" and "What is an earthquake?" to "Why do bad things happen?" and "What is a miracle?" Sometimes, Dawkins ends up shrugging his shoulders. For example, after noting that time and space itself are thought to have begun with the big bang 13.7 billion years ago, he adds: "Don't ask me to explain that, because, not being a cosmologist, I don't understand it myself."
Why even put that in the book then? Who wants to read a chapter, where the answer is I dont know, or dont ask me to explain that?
KTate - you obviously don't understand the concept of 'theory'. Theory just means something has happened, but we don't understand everything about how it has happened. Gravity is a theory - we know it exists, but don't understand everything about how it works. The parts we don't understand need yet to be studied. At least science acknowledges the holes. Religion just says to forget about it because it has already been explained.
JustCurious, Richard does explain what scientists know about the moments after the big bang, and how they know it. But origins are always the hardest things for scientists to explain, whether it's the origin of consciousness, or life or the cosmos. On balance, I think it's a good thing to acknowledge that there are gaps in what we know. That doesn't mean we should put our faith in a "God of the Gaps" ... that is, I believe in God because some things are unexplainable. You're just setting yourself up for a crisis of faith (or denial) when those things are explained.
Who said anything about God of the Gaps? My point is simply that the answer I don't know doesn't seem to be a valid answer for a science book.
I am a Christian and find philosophical errors in both directions.
Some say: There are so many mysteries, there must be a God. Others say: We can explain so much, there must not be a God.
Neither position is a very stable one.
Also, at times it seems Mr. Dawkins position is that when it comes to historical figures of religion, no facts are knowable. If that is what he is inferring, then he is on shaky philiosophical ground, as well.
frosty- we should never accept bad data in place of no data, it is best to say I don't know [yet] and keep looking, this is a stable position.
"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer for a science book, although it would be more accurately stated as, "I don't know... yet. Let's think of ways to find out."
Frosty, even Dawkins has said that on a scale of 1 - 7, with 1 being absolute certainty that there is a God and 7 being absolute certainty that there is not a God, he is only a 6.9. (He's certain about the deities of human religion, since those religions make demonstrably false claims, but it's impossible to be certain about a generalized "higher power" because such a being is too vaguely defined to be testable.) Empirical atheists are agnostics holding to the null hypothesis. In the absence of positive evidence in favor of a proposition (in this case the proposition being "There is a God") there is no reason to accept the proposition. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Otherwise, to be logically consistent, we would have to equally open to the existence of literally every magical being ever proposed.
Lola- I assume your comment was directed towards me. I am inclined to disagree. A scientific theory would be a valid answer for a science book. I don't know is not valid.
A scientific theory is valid if the science has actually been done. If not, it would be wrong for a science book to pretend we have answers when we don't.
To quote Dara O'Briain: Science knows we don't know everything. Otherwise, it'd stop.
You are completely missing my point. It would be better if the chapter was left out, or explained by someone who does know, or even has a decent theory on the topic. "I don't know" and "Don't ask me to explain that" do not belong. You want to go around reading books that offer no explanation, go for it.
JustCurious - I would guess that Dawkins did it that way because he wanted a complete accounting of his take on everything, in case people want to know. It is a very ego-centric attitude, but that's Dawkins for you. He's a smart guy, but a little too in love with stirring the pot and being the center of controversy.
Lola: " Empirical atheists are agnostics holding to the null hypothesis. In the absence of positive evidence in favor of a proposition..."
I like that. Very succinct. I would go on to point out that in the absence of positive evidence, specific details of a particular theology can be even more easily dismissed.
Just Curious, not even cosmologists know for sure that the big bang happened. According to the data we can observe, it is presently the best possible theory to explain what we see, but there are still other possibilities.
Additionally, in my own personal opinion, the resort to explanations such as
in order to explain what we see, is no better than invoking angels, demons and other supernatural beings to explain reality.
In other words, until we know more about how and perhaps more importantly why gravity works we should not surmise and purport the existence of any sort of invisible undetectable stuff, whether matter or energy, as a means of explaining what we observe. That's no better than relying on Apollo and Zeus, Mithra and Yahweh, Alpha and Omega, Dark Matter and Dark Energy... it's all the same to me.
Mikey, well, shucks. Thank you for 2.18. My little mind has been thinking the same thing ever since I first learned about dark matter and dark energy. I always supposed that the scientists were conjuring up something invisible and undetectable -- just like the faithful do when they don't know what else to do.
Oh, thank goodness I am not alone any longer. Soon, they will be talking about dark mana, I think.
You know, Grump, I consider science a religion all unto itself. As opposed to actual religions that have their static books, science is a "living" religion, in the sense that they are still exploring and helping it grow. The funny thing, tho, is that science has just as many things that make you scratch your head and call BS. Yes, I know... the atheist that bashes the religious, turning on the logical. The problem is that the logical isn't always that. I'll explain...
Some scientist gets a good idea and when they puts it all down on their board, they are missing one piece. As much as they try, they can't come up with a provable answer. What do they do? They make something up. Example... how can they even guess at the fact that there are 11 dimensions? Then my absolute favorite... black holes.
The scientific community "knows" so much about them, yet they have NEVER actually seen one. The way that they describe it is also illogical. Think about it. A black hole is suposed to be a hole in space, yet everything you see about them has them in 2D. They talk about an event horizon... and the name even implies a 2D look to it. A hole in space would be exactly that... a 3D hole. There would not be an "event horizon", because it would be a sphere that surrounded the black hole. Here is the twist, they will reject my hypothesis out of hand because there is no bearing and I can't prove any of it, BUT in the same breath... neither can they. That is why there is an argument about string theory. How can there be an argument... just prove it! If you can't, then shut up about it.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
- Richard Dawkins
I go one god less than the theists.
I'm with you, although, as a Norwegian Son, I do miss Odin and the concepts of Valhalla.
And Jesus Christ is still Lord.
jesus is a figment of your over active imagination.
Incorrect sir/madam Lunatic. Jesus has been historically proven to have lived, therefore not a "figment of (an) over active imagination".
Better check your facts again Jake, all accounts are over a hundred years after the fact, and nowhere in your bible does it say that he was born on Dec 25th. Even in your bible, Paul (previously Saul) never met the guy, and only knew of him through his "visions". Paul is the guy that restarted the "Christian" religion, over a hundred years after everybody supposedly "forgot" about jesus.
Mac-Better check your facts again. According to Wikipedia (I know not the greatest source, but pretty reliable, Paul was born AD or CE 5 and died AD or CE 67. Pauls letters are dated between 50 and 62 AD(CE) by scholars. My guess is you are not a scholar.
However, you are correct about the date Dec 25th, and the fact that Saul of Tarsus had never met Jesus and it was in a vision that Saul became Paul and started writing his epistles.
Whether or not you believe in God, Allah, Jesus, the flying Spaghetti Monster, or Nihilism is ok with me. To each his own. However, if you are going to berate another poster on his/her facts, I suggest checking your own first. Rationally speaking, if Jesus did exist and is said to have died in 33 A.D(CE), publishing letters 20 years after is death doesn't seem to be so crazy to me. Especially in that time period. Most stories, myths, and truths, were passed down verbally. They didn't have blogs to post instantly after things happened.
I never made nor intimated any claim other than Jesus was a real live human and that has been independently corroborated by multiple historical sources. I offered no comment on his details nor teachings, just that he was a real person who did indeed live during the time in question. Please do not overlay your beliefs onto my statements.
Jake - where exactly has it been proven that Jesus existed?
Yea Right-Please show me scientific evidence that Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates existed.
Even if it had been proven that Jesus existed (which it has not), that doesn't prove that Jesus was divine or that the New Testament's claims about what he taught are true.
Some of the claims about the life of Jesus are demonstrably false. The Bible claims that Jesus was born during a Roman census and then persecuted by Herod. This is impossible. King Herod died well over a decade before the Roman census of Judea took place.
Jake, unfortunately none of those historical sources were contemporaneous. The earliest gospels were written decades after Jesus supposedly died. Paul's letters were written decades after Jesus died. Neither Tacitus nor Josephus were contemporaries of Jesus, and neither historian interviewed any eyewitnesses. We don't have any evidence for the historical Jesus that comes from his actual lifetime, nor do we have any firsthand accounts of his life. I'm open to the possibility that Jesus was a real human, but it's far from proven.
just Cu -I thought the question was quite simple to Jake, why answer a question with a question.
Can the historical sources be provided?
I think most historians assume that Jesus probably existed, and had a big influence on people. After that the details are less certain. There is no particular reason NOT to believe that the basic story common to all of the gospels was roughly what happened, but the details and miracles and such are anybody's guess. It sure is a good story though!
To Yea Right, please see Lolas second posting as she mentions most of the ancient literary works and historians I was referring too (sorry I do not have exact references handy but will try to post an update when I can). There a couple of others that are not in the commonly accepted canons. Most texts from this time were/are considered "religious" texts and would therefore be excluded by you as authentic, I assume.
But I do not believe a religious text can be dismissed out of hand. For instance, the Bible is definitely a religious text but also is a documentation of history. Many (not all) of the places, persons and events discussed in the Bible have archeological and textual corroboration, therefore their reference in the Bible does not nullify their existence. Inversely, neither does some provable fact in the Bible mean the Bible is all fact.
To Lola, you are correct that the proof of direct interview is lacking. However, we work with the proof we have and it is commonly accepted that the writings you have mentioned are more than enough to say that Jesus did live upon this earth for a period of time. I agree that this is enough proof, but for some there can never be enough proof. You yourself acknowledged this when you said "Some of the claims about the life of Jesus are demonstrably false." If he had no life on this earth then all of the claims are false.
Again, I am making no claim other than that the man lived. All other beliefs I may or may not have about Jesus are mine and not open for public consumption.
In addition, I would not even read what I wrote. TLDR.
I realize I have brought up a nit that I picked but I dislike the trolls that dismiss anything or thought for the simple reason that the troll likes to be disagreeable. Thus my original response to The Lunatic who I thought was being mean.
Nothing here to see, please resume your normal activities :)
Sorry - not trying to be mean, just humoring the overblown hype that this guy jesus has gotten for the past 2000 years. It's getting embarrasing that people are still raising the stakes and adding more to the tall tales.
Jesus may very well have lived and walked upon this Earth, and told wise and compassionate stories to his followers, but he was just a man, was very likely gay, and was "lord" of nothing.
Unfortunately, for men who lay their faith on the powers of human intelligence rather than the power of human imaginations, we'll always have to face people like K Tate who can not be swayed from his delusion.
Actually the more they believe the less they know.
Here's the problem with religion.
It serves as a blanket and teddy bear for grown-ups. Try taking a blanket and teddy bear away from a very young child and you will have the same reaction. Some people just cannot cope with life without religion. Some people need religion so they don't drink, do drugs, or do bad things in general. Some need it to cope with the deaths of their loved ones. Let them have their religion, and those of us who have learned how to deal with life without religion can do so.
My issue with religion is only when others insist that we all be members of their particular religious variety, or be eternally tortured and/or murdered, depending upon your personal hell belief.
Mr. Boyle - Well said!
"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson
I wonder what he thinks about Ancient Astronaut theory and if he ever watch Ancient Aliens on the history channel?
He would think as any reasonable human that the history channel is insane for airing such obvious trash.
The History Channel has always been the Jesus Channel and the Nonsense Channel.
skrekk - 100% true. It's the blogging of "educational" TV. Represents itself as news and fact, but is really crappy opinion instead.
Another activist scientist...
One would think the two things would be mutually exclusive...
Science and opinion, blurring the lines between the two is great for children. :/
sarcasism
Right..... We should just teach them that fairy tales are true instead.
Wait a minute... We shouldn't include Science with an Opinion? An opinion backed up by science should be the ONLY valid opinion ANYONE should ever take into consideration. What the...??? Should be only take Opinions from children? From the comatose? From the mentally challenged? How about if we only accept, as valid, opinions spoon fed us from our politicians and religious leaders. Are those the only acceptable opinions? MTSR1 really needs to rethink their thinking.
to quote Spock....."interesting" ;-)
Wouldn't that be..."fascinating"...:-)
i believe ultimately that religion has always been an more advanced science that what we have today. there are 2 factors to its weaknesses, what has been lost and the left over which has been grossly misinterpreted. Christ knew this which is why he said i will bring a sword he knew people would interpreted his message and wage violence in his name of which he was against.
Man, that wasn't all that smooth, super..
Mr. Dawkins is a refreshing balance to all the religious crazys who throw out all sorts of idiotic explanations for things without data or logic to back them up. We need more people like him if our species is to survive.
I am just finishing Mr. Dawkins book, The God Delusion. One of the areas that the book explores is the concept that belief structures (religions, ideas) act rather like computer viruses. Think of the human brain as a powerful biological computer, which is the proper environment for the evolution of bizarre and competing thought patterns (memes). These memes spread from person to person. From an biological evolutionary standpoint, the expenditure of energy and time of the people devoutly "infected" doesn't make sense without the concept that the memes are competing with each other. Memes take a variety of forms, not just religion. Take the devout Ohio State University football fan (Just about any other team would also do.). The fan will not only spend considerable money on tickets, memorabilia, etc., but will also devote most of a nice autumn Saturday to sitting in a crowded stadium or in front of a TV. From a strictly Darwinian biological evolutionary view, this would seem a complete waste of resources for the person (fan). However, the idea that memes evolve and compete against each other in an evolutionary way, means that the fan's behavior helps the meme (football mania) to survive.
For a meme, such as a religion, minds are the environment in which it lives. It competes with other memes (religions) for those minds. A mind which cannot be occupied is worthless to them. That helps to explain why almost without exception, religion is hostile to atheists.
Wrong book review man. This is about "Magic" or whatever. God Delusion was like 3 years ago or something.
Same author, I would expect his latest book to be just as thought provoking.
The term meme is from the Selfish Gene (1976). Hey man, by all means, provoke away. But if you are to question everything, be sure to question everything.
HAHA! And to expand on the sports theme, there's the pervasive phenomenon of the sports fan and his (almost invariably HIS) conviction that his own behavior is somehow influencing the outcome of the play...my husband, for example, will notice what he happens to be doing when his team scores, and will then make every effort to repeat that behavior to help his team score again. Hilarious!
OK, this, and the iPad, just made my shopping list for my kids. Aside from squashing mythologies, did you see the explanation of Boyle's law? The contintental drift interactive thing?
Too cool, too cool. I'm raising my kids to question everything and to separate fact from fancy (so to speak), this will be a nice addition.
@SBParrothead - good job teaching kids to question everything - just be careful - the greatest barrier to truth is the notion one already has it.
i.e. Mr Dawkins.
The greatest obstacle to truth is the presumption one already knows it. (truth is self-evident - assuming one can accept it exists)
Sadly conventional science and 'religion' are both lies meant to manipulate people toward an specific agenda.
Today faith plays as much a role in Science as 'Religion'. Historically anyone who's postulation is outside the respective comfort zones is ostracized, only to be later vindicated)
There is, nor ever will be, contradiction between the bible (old & new testament) and true science.
And yes, the bible can be proven true is one has an open mind to truly consider it.
Case in point, prophecies relating to Jesus as the Christ.
Take 48 of the most obvious ones (from Bethlehem, and Egypt, betrayed for 30 talents etc) and assign a likelihood that 1:1000 people could filled a particular one gives a probability of 10e157.
To put this in perspective, if you make a ball out of every atom in the universe (10e66 atoms) for EVERY atom in the universe (10e66 * 10e66 = 10e132) and repeat for EVERY SECOND since the universe began (10e17 x 10e132 = 10e149) is still 10e8 short of 10e157!
This is only 48 of the 300+ prophecies regarding the Christ.
And all God asks is that we humbly acknowledge we've fallen short of His glory and need Him in our hearts. (Not by our works)
Genius of genisis
JR12,
Ah yes, the bible. It has inspired so many. Take for example the inspiration of Judges chapter 19, verses 19-29 (The Levite's concubine, who was gang raped, beaten and killed.). Or the ten commandments (Exodus 20:3-17 or the second ten commandments (Exodus 34:14-23). It is in the second ten commandments that we learn that God's name is "Jealous"! How about Numbers chapter 15, verses 32-36. (Death for picking up sticks on Sunday!)
Fortunately, most 'Christians' today quietly ignore these and other horrible Bible passages. Unfortunately some don't and many Muslims take their religion far too seriously.
Then you should be a Hindu, like the other billion Hindus, they have bigger numbers than Christians, and more gods, your probability of being right would be greater. That's what you are trying to say right "better do it, just in case"?
The atheists like me would simply rather not bow/kneel down to any unprovable god in the mean time. Our moral come from how we would like to be treated, not because we are afraid of an invisible sky-daddy.
BTW, have you ever read the bible? It is a horrible book, full of horrible acts (mostly done by your god). If all people on Earth relied on your bible for knowledge, it would be a horrible place from the suffering alone, from the sick, the killings in his name, and the slaves most of us would be (slaves are ok according to god, and you can beat them, just not to death, just shy, but not to death). Have you read the part where it says to kill people that do so much as pick up sticks for firewood on the sabbath? What a wonderful world, NOT!
I bet in your head jesus is a tanned white guy, with brown hair, and blue eyes too.
@dale & @Mac - yes, the bible is full of grotesque & violence. Such is history which further makes the case:
Don't get religion and the bible confused.
Nor the presumption of truth by thinking you know it.
The bible points out how nasty & un-godly MAN's fallen nature is - as well as how greatly loved and divine.
Mostly it's about how a loving God's love for amendment.
Sorry for my curt response people..wish I could delete it but...
I agree with you both more than you can imagine...I feel for your anger.
'christians' have done a lot of damage to this world and G-d's name.
@JR12: What? You've strung together some very large numbers, but have demonstrated nothing.
@Jake the Duck: Please provide more information to support your claims of this "proof". Admitted forgeries, such as the writings of Josepheus are not acceptable, nor are any secular writings, as they are circular and self-serving.
---
Now I am not an atheist, quite the opposite really, but... I place no faith whatsoever in anything that comes from the middle east. This area of the world produces only lies, terrorists, and oil. I believe there are greater, even Divine wills at work, laying the foundations of existence. I do not believe in arabic-zombie-jews.
Some day, even Dawkins will bow down and profess Jesus Christ as Lord and King.
Or will find himself stuck in the dirt.
Or will find himself reborn as something or someone else.
Or... ultimately, only the dead will ever know what become of the dead.
Yet the living will go on, pushing their own religious and philosophical beliefs on others, like it will ever make a difference.
Why do people like you continue raise a child just to allow the child to be crucified every year forcing people to watch your grim detail of whipping and thorning the child that you profess everyone must fall down and worship?
Jesus was a teacher not Lord of any estate or the King of any antion. He was merely a teacher trying to teach people to be good while they lived their lives but instead your treachory and deceit that I am most certain that you use to make others think of you as being the voice from the past is the actually the crux that you put Jesus upon every year.
Jesus' main teaching while upon his cross that day was to "Always look up, ask questions and let those who are common minded and fearful of the unknown bear their own cross in hell for all eternity."
What. The. . are you talking about? Neither one of us has any idea what that is supposed to mean. I've never crucified anyone, thorned anyone, or urged anyone to worship a child.
Maybe I just missed something, but three re-reads later, I'm trying to make some sense of this.
KenMan, I'm not sure what you're smoking, but it must be some pretty good stuff. Our lord AND king? Wow. That's what 2,000 years of hype can do for a man.
How'd he get to be king? I didn't vote for him.
No, silly, you don't vote for a king. It's an inherited position. But I'm still wondering how he got to be king when his mother was supposed to be a virgin.
Does anyone believe in unconditional Love, or does he or she believe that self interest is above all?
"Hard headed facts"
Very appropriate description. Immovable, unimaginative and rock headed. That's the picture I get from that little revealing phrase. The Church of Science says so and we ain't gonna budge. Sounds like the Church of the Dark Ages. Disagree and you'll be excommunicated. The current Church of Science is no better than the Church of the Abyss.
Maybe people should get together then and form a new temple not a church that would enshrine the Universe around us that would allow the metaphysical aspect of thought to carry each member into the Universe through the thought processes associated with Mind Folding.
Mind Folding is a simple practice. Basically you take imagines in a book such as the Sol System and your learn about each planets colors and climates as well as the bodies that orbit each planet or objects that are present within the Sol System.
You then move yourself into a place of isolation such as a room where the walls are black. A projector then projects a background of stars before you while the chair upon which you sit in slowly moves left to right. As you fix your thoughts and eyes on one point you slowly drift off into a deep metaphysical state of connecting your mind with the moving moving star field and the images that you have read about. Next allow the natural sounds of wind to stir up the dirt before you walk across the barren landscape of Mars.
Next make yourself feel like the eagle flying high above you free and gliding on the winds hand. Once you have practiced this feeling you can then make yourself like the eagle in the Universe as you soar through the Universe of the mind to make a Mind Folded leap from Earth to other parts of the Universe.
Time and Space are universally infinite as they have always been and will always be. If one says that time and space were not present before the Big Bang then what was present before the Big Bang then? There was only time and space. The same notion of people who say that their is an edge to our Universe get the same response. What happens when we come to the edge of our Universe? The simple response is that we encounter an area of space where there are no planets or solar systems just the void of space until we encounter the next Universe that would be similar to ours or maybe completely different.
The Big Bang is a paradox. By saying that a single source of a definative beginning occured at one point leads us to think about what that point of creation occured that allowed the Big bang to occur and so forth into the paradoxial realm of the infinite time and space matrix. A matrix that when thought about who might have created it and how they might have created it ALWAYS leads us to the next question....How where those who created it created? How did they create it and who created them that created that they created that created us? See the paradox forming of the same question always being asked about the point of creation? It always leads us into the infinite loop theory of never having a singular point of creation. This makes the Universe infinite in it's age, time, dimension, knowledge and existance. The best way to manage oneself in the Infinite Loop Theory is too set aside the notion of trying to create a sense of who created what but rather create vessels to carry the seed of humanity into the unknown so that humanity can grasp the next ladder rung on who we are in the Universe instead of merely saying that if travel so far that we would fall off the edge of space. What would we fall off into when we came to that edge? What more infinite space?
Since this is cutting edge on understanding our universe, it's important to note that there are several theories surrounding this issue. One of the many theories states that the possibility exists that space loops back on itself, similar to how our planet is a globe and if you travel far enough you end up right back where you started. Think of it more like a holographic image that is expanding. That's why most of the universe looks like it's moving away from us (red-shifted rather than blue-shifted). We are on the outside of an expanding bubble that will either keep expanding forever or, due to gravitational forces eventually taking over the expansion process, we will contract back to a single infinitely small point.
It's important to note, that the universe could not have existed forever in it's current state. All stars (suns) compact molecules together (usually hydrogen and helium at this point) to form larger molecules like iron, etc. If the universe had already existed infinitely, then there would be virtually no more hydrogen left to fuse with the only remaining elements being those that could not be fused further. Our sun and many others would have burned out LONG ago (infinitely in the past if the universe had infinitely existed). The way we know this is by taking a sort-of prism when we look at stars and using it to break apart the light spectrum. The resulting spectrum shows us what type of elements are burning in the star because each element burns at a different color.
I was talking about the actual backdrop of space such as one would look at a piece of black construction paper. The molecules were present in different forms before the Big Bang and possibly due to Atomic Orbital Jumping the presence of Dark Matter caused the molecules to jump to a higher or lower orbit within the Universal matrix that caused various different reactions to occur at each orbital level.
If we turn the Sol System on its side, hold your lunch the spin might cause your stomach to turn and we don't need any red chunks all over the dashboard, to represent the atom with each planet representing an electron around the nucleus does the state of each not change when moved to a different oribital around the Sun?
Mars would become more habitable if moved to the orbit around the Sun. Earth would become less habitable is moved to the orbital of Jupiter etc. So we can see the orbital transfer of dimensional transference when looking at the Universe in much the same manner. The core of our Universe would be the Sun similar to our Sun with all of the planets orbiting the core being at various orbital patterns. Our Universe would then be like the electron orbiting the center of a Universal nucleus where billions of Universes reside in each orbital. If one universe jumps to a higher or lower orbital does it's energy composition not change as well?
All the religious people aren't even acknowledging PROVEN FACTS that Christianity is a religion that LITERALLY EVOLVED from the PAGAN religion (and possibly others). They are simply saying that they are RIGHT. How Christian! Do they not even realize that they're just reiterating things they have been told by their parents and their community? Do they not even realize that if they had been born into an entirely different religion they would be just as pious and self-righteous about that religion?
This would be a scenario that is impossible in science. There are no alternate paths in science. It is either proven true or proven false and EVERYONE moves forward once there is sufficient evidence. Science can only evolve within itself because things HAVE to be proven. If you can prove something to be true or false then, instead of the Pope taking the stage and decrying, "God told me so and you are insane if you say otherwise... we will stone you to death if you argue against the word of god!"... yeah... it's happened MANY times... instead of that, though, YOU would take the stage and say "Here's my evidence: Please try and prove me wrong so we can continue to move forward as a species." It's as simple as that with science. Prove me right or prove me wrong. There will be no stonings if you argue with me because there is no all-knowing preacher or pope. I truly WANT to know how this works or what the truth is. I'm not simply going to tell you to accept it. You literally have the opportunity to educate yourself and prove me right or wrong... or... the best of science... come up with an idea of your OWN and prove it right or wrong!
An important note with science:
The data is sometimes inbetween truth and guesswork, but it's called erring on the side of caution to take the negative conotations seriously until more is known. That's why we call them theories because we don't KNOW FOR CERTAIN how everything about the theory works. It's called being respectful and diligent. The religious nuts just want science to say "IT's TRUE FOR SURE!" because they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up the so-called truths they venemously spit at the non-believers aside for 2000-year old scrolls that have been translated a multitude of times from distant languages written by virtual cave-men STRUGGLING to understand why the sun rose and fell, the stars "fell" from the sky, and why disease struck and killed entire villages... let alone WHAT disease WAS.
Actually Christians were not born from the Pagan. Christians were born from an uprising where they had grown tired of being used as Lion Fodder for the entertainment of the elite Roman ruling class that made the Roman Empire and the Roman rulers alot of money.
Pagan's are those who celebrate the different seasons with festivals dedicated to the changing seasons that are based upon scientific knowledge learned from many different aspects such as farming, live stock raising, seamenship etc. All of which were perfectly bundled into a very good package of spiritual affairs.
Then the Christians came along and decided to capitilize on Jesus' death saying that everything that had occured even the seasons changing was all because of him. These types of Christians are base for all delusions within the realm of Christianity because they merely think that if they have a name from the Bible that they in fact hold all of the knowledge necessary for those around them to believe in without any factual knowledge what-so-ever being used in their assertations.
I knew a guy one time whose name was Jeremy. He said that once we die all that happens to us is that we become worm fodder. The same guy said the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Sun orbited the Earth.
He is the classic example of how Christians where during the time after Jesus when people began to name their children after the various prophets of the Bible. They believe that they are to be listened to without question and that what they have to say is the definative answer to all questions because they are the reincarnated spirit of someone from the past.
If this was true then any question relating math such as a simple algerbraic formula when asked of them would be able to be easily be mouthed back to the person asking the question.
The only response ever given however was "Huh?" This told me that he did not really know what he was talking about and was merely acting like he knew hoping that the mask of illusion surrounding his name would inspire me to fear him and believe in what he had said was true without question.
Those who ACT in such a manner still live at the back of the cave scared even to come close to the camp fire let alone taking the journey outside of the cave into the reality of what is real.
Christianity is a primarily a combination of Mithraism and Judaism.
...but there are those who have names from the Bible who understand that they must be educated with real knowledge otherwise they would rest with the rest of the Named from the Bible as being below average and quite disdainful to even speak with. The learned named Christian will tell you not to put your belief in what the uneducated named have to to say as they will like the thief and liar at the sides of Christ will only try to make you like they are. They will rather explain to you in depth the answers to your questions and will not rebuke you if you venture off to discover the answer from other sources that aligned itself with the answer that they gave you. They will merely respond with a smile saying "You did not trust me and the answer that was given to you. You instead ventured off into the world met new people of different languages and thoughts where the same answer was given to you by them that I had given to you. This makes above those who merely and vehemontly only want through their self entitlement. You have become a human and not the ape in the cave."
God is unlike anything that man has experienced, unless one has an experience of God you will not the have the slightest idea of what His substance is. The best one can say is that He is all power, all knowing, all good, but that pretty much sums it up, and He expects man to Love one another unconditionally as each man or woman Loves himself or herself, because that alone will lead to salvation, for this world and mankinds salvation in the next. Really!!
Perhaps. Perhaps not. People have different faiths.
But this article is about things we have actual evidence for.
Really? A loving God? All Good too? Then what's all this Jealousy about he mentions in his 10 Commandments: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God. What's that all about. Should an all knowing, all seeing, universal, eternal, and ALL POWERFUL God have petty emotions like Jealousy? It's hard to love oneself and to love God when there's all this Jealousy tainting our relationship, don'tcha think?