A Rhetorical Analysis Of Richard Dawkins The Magic Of Reality

1134 Words5 Pages
Science and “The Magic of Reality”: A Rhetorical Analysis

Can an author discretely manipulate your beliefs? The ethologist, revolutionary biologist, and writer, Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Magic of Reality, attempts to reveal and explain to the readers the magic found in the nature surrounding us. Since the book requires basic scientific knowledge, it targets secondary school students and those older. Dawkin’s purpose is to convince readers that science can explain ultimately anything, and to persuade them into disregarding their belief in metaphysical explanations.

Richard Dawkins started off the chapter by clarifying that anything that exists, or has once existed, is a reality which can be detected somehow by our senses, or has left
…show more content…
Firstly, supernatural magic, the form found in myths and fictional stories like Aladdin’s lamp and Harry Potter’s world of wizardry. Secondly, stage magic, which is nothing but tricks performed by magicians that they do not reveal for the sake of the confidentiality of their profession or for deceitful purposes of fraud in careers like mindreading and fortune-telling. Last but not least, poetic magic, the kind of magic we use to describe something extremely beautiful and breathtaking as ‘magical’, with given examples like sunsets, alpine landscapes, and rainbows against dark skies. Here the writer uses the “build it up-break it down” method with supernatural magic, reminding his readers with their childhood before suddenly shattering its beauty with the obvious “but we all know that kind of magic is just fiction and does not happen in reality.” This highlights how abstract supernatural magic is, and how believing in it is a form of immaturity. Why? Because the definition of supernatural, as he introduced it, revolves around having all natural explanations become eternally inapplicable- a weakness further displayed by juxtaposing it with science, “science takes the exact opposite approach. Science thrives on its inability –so far- to explain everything.” Dawkins sheds additional light on this important difference by
Open Document