Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

I’ve been reading a book. Sort of. The book in question is an app, which causes the lines between reading and watching and indeed playing to blur a little, but fundamentally it was a book, and mostly I read it. It is The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins. Generally, it is a good book-app. The style of writing is engaging and approachable, the graphics etc. are great, and the interactive elements are very well done. As one of the early book-apps it really shows the potential for what books could now be. When I was little I loved reading science books for kids, most of which were actually written for my Dad’s generation and indeed were his. I still have them. They don’t contain half of what we now know and theorise, but I loved the pictures and the way things were presented. The possibilities for such books as apps is very exciting indeed.

However, this book has filled me with disquiet. I bought it, so I felt I should read it all, and I liked bits of it, but I do have a habit of avoiding things I don’t like. I don’t watch TV shows that make me angsty, I don’t read books that irritate me. This book irritated me, but I’d paid for it so I continued to read it. It irritated me because it has an agenda, specifically an anti-religion agenda. The author (a known anti-religion advocate) presents first a myth, and then uses science to prove why that myth is a lie. And that is the kind of terminology it uses to describe myths; as lies, stories, laziness etc. Jesus did not turn water into wine; it was either a lie, an exaggeration, or a trick. There’s no way Cinderella’s pumpkin could have turned into a carriage. Magic doesn’t exist. At no point does this two-dimensional slaughter of myths and religion point out that they could be seen/interpreted as analogies or parables, rather than as simply truth or lie. Now, I’m not religious (though I am spiritual) but I am in general against any form of indoctrination, including anti-religion indoctrination, and especially in a ‘science’ book. It’s a shame, as if you consider the science alone I think the content is fab and pitched at the right level and in the right format to get children really interested, however thanks to the one-sided anti-religion agenda I would not let a child read it.

Here is an unstaged photo of part of my bookcase of my childhood reading material, taken just now, that I think sums up a balanced approach to a child education (my early literature consisted mostly of Enid Blyton which takes up a whole separate shelf):

From left-to-right: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Wildlife (Vol. 1), Picture Stories from the Bible, my stamp collection (ever the geek), Patrick Moore’s Astronomy for the Under Tens, Introducing Dogs, Aesop’s Fables, The World We Live In and Discovering The Earth. The Prophet is actually a much more recent acquisition; I can’t claim to have read that as a child.

Props to AnM if you get the title reference. Props if you don’t also, as it probably means you were paying more attention in class and not reading the walls…