Reality vs magic

Richard Dawkins talks about the 'magic of reality' and I think that's a good way to characterize the materialist view of the universe, as reality from that perspective can only be a kind of magic trick, a kind of illusion perpetrated by the powerful on the masses.

Quotes and comments;

1. "...science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. (Cobb and Coyne) [1.]

- The good professors (assuming there is such a thing) tell us that 'religions' shouldn't make claims about reality, but many philosophers of science say that 'science' shouldn't make claims about reality. Has this escaped their notice? From Kant and onward, the consensus in philosophy is that science deals with experience, not reality. People like Coyne just ignore this and claim 'science' can tell us about reality. This puts them in the position of being anti-philosophical or anti-rational.

For a materialist to speak of reality is comical, as there is no warrant in this worldview for talk about reality. What would this reality be? Whose reality would it be? Who gets to decide? If all of us are merely animals which animal's view of things should be taken as the real one?
On which level does reality exist? On the micro (nano) level or on the macro level?
Is there only one reality or many realities?

Only Christianity can offer a grounded view of reality; as reality is what the Creator wants it to be and what He proclaims it is. It's the providential governance of the universe by the One intelligent enough to have created it, and the One powerful enough to control it. There is no reality apart from this.

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism - Jerry Bergman
Full quote;
" science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution (Cobb and Coyne 2008, p. 1049,

- That 'need' to be addressed? Really? Did they forget that the universe is merely matter in motion? There is then no moral or intellectual need for anything.
It's worthy of note that atheists can never seem to speak in terms that are consistent with their worldview. They need to ask themselves why this is.

The idea Christianity can be studied scientifically is simple nonsense, a product a materialist reductionism. What would such a farce entail? Weighing Christ before and after the crucifixion? Counting the words in genesis? Human beings aren't things to be measured, as if they were asteroids or cucumbers.

2. They sadly mischaracterize 'religion', as Christians (their main focus of attack) do not think that awe and reverence are a 'clue' to understanding the universe. As the authors well know; orthodox Christians believe that special revelation is the key to understanding human experience and ultimate reality. It's unfortunate they can't get such a basic as this straight, and we have to wonder at their ability to get other things correct.

3. Perhaps what we need more than a 'scientific' study of religion is a scientific study of atheism. (We might begin by counting the hairs on heads of the new atheists, and then dividing by four. That should make it properly scientific.)
- Over and over we see people making the mistake of confusing science with Materialism. This works quite well with things, but people aren't things.