The Magic of Reality: Richard Dawkins interview with Fran Kelly

10th April 2012
via Radio National

Richard Dawkins is an atheist, evolutionary biologist and author. He’s in Australia to be a keynote speaker at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, and was on ABC1’s Q&A last night. His latest book has just been released and is aimed at children. It’s called ‘The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.’

Click to listen.

4 Responses to The Magic of Reality: Richard Dawkins interview with Fran Kelly

  1. Shand says:

    Its an amazing book for young and old

  2. maikel annaghlee says:

    In the interview Richard explains:
    “I wanted to show that there are myths from all around the world that have the same kind of poetic force and poetic beauty but none of them have any explanatory value whatever”
    I disagree as truth is not just what modern science explains; otherwise there is no truth without science.
    “judaeo-christian myths are just tribal myths like any other”
    I agree as myths are myths; and so are then not religion.

    “the real story is the science and it’s the science that dominates each of my 12 chapters”
    I disagree as reality or its story are only science, when science is true to reality. And science is only true to reality, when it is potentially free to accept its untruth.
    In best practice, the process of proving or establishing the reality of truth is both rational and logical. Such qualities have equivalent functions in both Religion and Science.

    There is a memeic correlation in Richard’s selection of 12 chapters and a most ancient means of providing best practice in decision making as recorded in sacred scripture.
    For though we now travel in decimalised space we inconsistently do so in duodecimalised time.
    Such is Life. And Life exists not just in a conjunction of space and time; but also cognitively in the conjunction of Science and Religion.

    Perhaps this what Richard means when he says: “I want to inspire young minds to think for themselves and to look at the evidence; evidence is the only reason why you should believe anything and there’s plenty of evidence available that’s understandable to young minds and I wanted to bring that evidence to young minds and let the young people decide for themselves.”

    My concern, not having read the book, is that the rational and logical Science of the Bible will be ignored by many readers, who are cognitively constrained by limitations in their science or religion.
    In my young mind’s eye, I still see the vision splendid of the Cosmos as did Carl Sagan and Douglas Adams, Arthur C. Clarke and the Son of Man.
    Each of them clearly saw that ‘God is logically an atheist’ and for that Reason, if no other, Science and Religion are conjoined.
    Otherwise, as David Miller writes elsewhere, human-kind is crippled by “perpetual cognitive dissonance.”

  3. Tim says:

    Could you explain “God is logically an atheist” and your conclusions following?
    From what I understand about your comments I would say this much – logically, logic supports itself in a feedback loop, and thus does science support itself as it is based on logic. It’s openness to it’s “untruth” in therefore obsolete.
    On cognitive dissonance… the fact that we can conceive of limitations to our perceptions is only proof of that – the limitation to our perception, just like any other thing which has the ability to perceive would have limitations to their perception.

  4. anna says:

    Hi Tim, I too find Maikel’s statement very intriguing.
    Since I am having trouble settling for the night I may have a crack at interpreting it, if u don’t mind. Could it be that Maikel’s “God is logically an atheist” may simply mean that God is, in its purest logic, ‘incapable’ of conceiving the existence of another (God). Infact, if He did so, he would be commiting murder/suicide of self and His purest logic all at once and therefore we would not have a God at all, nor a Mr Dawkins, nor a Cardinal Pell, nor a debate for that matter.
    Am I thinking logically or I am suffering from sleep deprivation?

    I watched Mr Dawkins and Cardinal Pell debate the other night. Much room for improvement, on one hand; on the other hand, the ABC and the host of the show are the only ones laughing all the way to the bank… but that’s just my opinion. I think I too am jet-lagged now.
    Peace and prosper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>