I'm on my lunch, so I can't go into this as much as I'd like, but in the interest of starting a dialogue I'll open with this...
The empirical world view - that is, forming your world view based solely on observable, natural science - is incomplete.
Naturalistic science is wonderful in that it can tell us how life came to be, but not the meaning of life. It can tell us what the laws of nature are, but not why there are laws of nature in the first place. It cannot account for a priori - knowledge independent of experience, such as language.
So my premise is this: Dawkin's empiricist approach is fantastic for uncovering the mysteries of the natural world, but it becomes flawed when applied to all aspects of life. In that regard, rationalism must always consider empiricism in dealing with the natural world, but not be restrained by it when dealing with the meaning of it.
Finally, the belief in God can be rational, in the epistemological sense of the word.
|