2. Hull 2
Dale S. Hull
Dr. Cumiford
Hux 541 – Rational Perspective
19 June, 2016
Science!!! Or Magic!!! Which Should We Choose?
Throughout human history mankind has had a desire to know. This desire has led us,
mostly, toward better methods of knowledge which enabled humans to manipulate their
environment. At first it seems that magic and science were intertwined, but over time, science
has come to dominate civilization, or at least the Western world. Today, one would think that the
battle would be over however, that is far from the case. While science has enabled humanity to
put people on the moon and send probes beyond the solar system, religion still continues to have
a hold on mankind. The conflict can, perhaps, best be seen by discussing the New Atheism and
rabid scientism of Richard Dawkins. As will be shown, the discussion of exactly what is science
and what is magic (and religion), and whether there is an actual conflict will make a lively
discussion.
Richard Dawkins, as one of the New Atheists (along with Hitchens, Harris and Dennet),
is a strong proponent of scientific rationalism. Perhaps his greatest book is The Blind
Watchmaker, in which he explains the scientific theory of evolution as only a natural scientist
can. Originally receiving his degree in Zoology at Balliol College, he eventually ends up
teaching at Oxford University where, at the time of The Blind Watchmaker’s publication, he held
the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science. He has since retired from
teaching, but continues to be an ardent promoter of science and the scientific way of viewing the

3. Hull 3
world: atheism. Dawkins is at his best when presenting scientific theories such as evolution. He
says,
This book [The Blind Watchmaker] is written in the conviction that our own
existence once presented the greatest of mysteries, but that it is a mystery no
longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall
continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet. I wrote this book
because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the
elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but, incredibly, in many
cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place! . . . The
complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their
apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries
out for an explanation, I give up. (Blind xiii)
Dawkins is, of course, talking about the scientific theory of evolution; the idea that although
there is apparent design, there is in fact no real design. Instead, there is the illusion of design
which can be explained by evolution. He continues the book (for 358 pages) and goes into
incredible detail in his explanation. His ardent defense of evolution and the scientific way of
thinking leads to his comments in his 2006 book The God Delusion. In the book, Dawkins argues
that not only are people who are religious wrong to believe in any supernatural deity, but they are
deluded. He says,
Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a
superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the
universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative
view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything,

4. Hull 4
comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual
evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the
universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense
defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion.
(God 33)
Dawkins’ claim that belief in the supernatural is not only wrong, but delusional leads to the
question of the supernatural. What is the supernatural as opposed to the natural; which is
scientific, and why is the supernatural wrong?
J. Bronowski gives a definition of science in Science and Human Values. He says, “I
define science as the organization of our knowledge in such a way that it commands more of the
hidden potential in nature” (Science 7). Bronowski continues by stating how magic fails where
science succeeds. He says, “Man masters nature not by force, but by understanding. This is why
science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast over
nature…. we control her [nature] only by understanding her laws” (Science 10). Bronowski
expands upon his explanation in Magic, Science and Civilization by giving a definition. He says,
My definition of magic is very simple. It is the view that there is a logic of
everyday life, but that there is a logic of another world. And that other logic works
in a different way and if you can only find the secret key, if you can enter into
some magical practice—particularly if you can find the right form of words—then
either the Almighty will be on your side or you will collect all the votes… but
which really always come to the same thing: trying to command the world and
particularly the opinions of other people by some formula which is other than the
truth. (Magic 12)

5. Hull 5
So, to clarify the claim: both science and magic, along with religion and the supernatural, make
claims about the ultimate nature of reality, but science is verifiable and repeatable, while magic
rests upon the idea of specialty, where specialty is secret and mystical. It allows people to feel
special, but according to Dawkins and Bronowski it is false and a lie, and a dangerous delusion.
This sets the stage. On one side there is the rational scientist, and on the other, is the
magic-believing faith-based delusion of religion. But of course, the immediate problem is that
the disjunction is not so simple. Suppose you have the following argument.
Either science is true, or magic (religion, faith etc…) is true.
Magic is not true (as per Dawkins and Bronowski).
_____________
Therefore, science is true.
Anyone taking a basic logic class would immediately point out that this is a false disjunction and
is vague in the extreme. Seldom is it the case that there exist only two possibilities. Dawkins and
Bronowski are ignoring two issues; the limitations of science, and that logically there are more
options on how to construct the world.
The first issue is the reliability and limitations of science. The scientific method with its
emphasis upon hypothesis, testing, consistency, simplicity, and predictive power has had
tremendous success in explaining the world along with human beings being able to influence
reality (the theory of gravity, inventions like antibiotics, etc…), however, there are assumptions
underlying science. These assumptions are: empiricism, objectivity, materialism, predictability,
and unity. Each of these is problematic; however, the most problematic is that although science
claims that it is the only way to view the world, science itself cannot actually prove any of the
assumptions of science. They are assumptions which allow science to provide us with

6. Hull 6
information which allows us to manipulate the world, yet these assumptions can’t be proven
(Boss 369-70). Therefore, science relies upon a sort of faith. Scientists have faith that the
assumptions of science rest upon a factual object (the universe external to our mind/brain), yet it
will never be possible to actually know that external universe. “In other words, the very starting
point of science—the existence of a physical world—cannot be empirically proven” (Boss 370)!
One could comment that while religion relies upon faith (and with it the idea of special
knowledge, along with magic), science also relies upon a sort of faith. The scientist would
respond that although there is faith in science, the results of science show that the assumptions of
science indeed rest upon something factual while the faith of religion with its dependence upon a
different form of logic (i.e. magic) has no actual evidence for its claims. So, it would seem that
while both rely upon faith (assumptions), science seems to have repeatability while religion
relies upon the claim of there being things unknowable to humans (i.e. magic, the supernatural,
or the divine).
Returning to the above argument, one can see that it is limited; there are more options.
Dawkins’ and Bronowski’s claim that science is the only way of viewing the world misses three
other options. There are four possible positions between science and religion (magic). First,
science beats magic (which is the above claim). Second, religion beats science when they
disagree, which is a typical conservative religious claim. Third, there is no conflict between them
as they are talking about different things. And, fourth there is no conflict as they are
complimentary (Boss 371-2).
The third position proposes that while science deals with the issue of objective reality,
religion with its emphasis upon magic and faith instead deals with “values and a subjective

7. Hull 7
spiritual reality” (Boss 372). Therefore, they both deal with different spheres or topics and there
is no overlap. This is questionable as will be shown next.
The fourth view is that both are complementary. Instead of a conflict where either one
wins in totality, science is the main way of viewing the world while religion is a complimentary
way to view the world. This means that instead of viewing science as indubitably correct and
religion is delusion, instead religion changes itself to complement science. Religion would drop
the claims about ultimate reality and instead view them as a metaphor (e.g. the creation story in
Genesis). Joseph Campbell points out in his many books that while religious claims are not
literally true, they can be read metaphorically and they, therefore, give human beings meaning to
their lives.1
One should also point out that science itself has religious claims within it. The idea that
man was given dominion over the earth allows humans to use nature for their benefit.
Additionally, the view that humans are a central part of reality and are of a higher nature than
animals allows humans to use animals as they see fit in medical experiments. Both views are, of
course, from the book of Genesis in the Jewish Torah and Christian Bible.
In conclusion, the author of this essay would like to point out that while both science and
religion make claims about the ultimate nature of reality (e.g. the Big Bang, or “Let there be
light…”), those are not the only claims that they make. Religion makes claims about values and
the meaning of individual human beings lives. Science, of course, also makes similar claims
according to Bronowski in his essay Science and Human Values. Therein he claims that while it
1
See specifically The Power of Myth, or the Hero with a Thousand Faces as to how human beings find
meaning in their lives even if the myths are not literally true.

8. Hull 8
is traditionally thought that science does not make any claims to values it in fact actually
embodies values in the way that science is performed. He says,
The subject of this book is the evolution of contemporary values. My
theme is that the values which we accept today are permanent and often as
self-evident have grown out of the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution.
The arts and the sciences have changed the values of the Middle Ages; and
this change has been an enrichment, moving towards what makes us
human (Science 51).
Bronowski thus argues that there is no clear distinction between science and religion
(magic, faith etc…) as they both concern values.
Finally, an example from Sjaak van der Geest’s article “’Sacraments’ in the Hospital”
shows that the ritualistic way of doing things has its place in the most scientific of settings; the
hospital. Van der Geest finds that the ways which are done in a hospital actually have meaning to
the patients. He gives the example of the nurse who fluffs the patient’s pillow. A simple act to be
sure, but by doing so the patient receives the nurses concern and is filled with “good feelings
which are likely to enhance the prospect of recovery” (van der Geest 140). This could be
construed as psychological gobbledygook, but underlying both religion and science is the
psychological element as both embody values.2
Therefore, it seems that while science may hold the upper hand, it cannot totally explain
mankind’s desire to have meaning in their lives. It seems that both science and ‘magic’ are
needed to make our lives meaningful.
2
Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions points out that human beings do science, and
as such they become attached to the way they think the world is; which call into question the idea of objectivity in
science. ‘Paradigm Shift’ anyone?

9. Hull 9
Works Cited
Boss, Judith A. Think: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life 2nd
edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.
Bronowski, Jacob. Science and Human Values. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Print.
______________. Magic, Science, and Civilization. New York: Columbia UP, 1978. Print.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, 1986. Print.
______________. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. Print
van der Geest, Sjaak. “’Sacraments’ In the Hospital: Exploring the Magic and Religion of