Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination
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.
|
It seems that you are assuming that there
"must" be a meaning of life because that's the way that you
"feel". You find that science does not satisfy your feelings in this regard and so you are turning to vague and quite intangible philosophical constructs of the Enlightenment such as rationalism in an attempt to quell the discordance you feel inside you, no?
Granted, I am not as familiar with the philosophy behind rationalism as you apparently are, and I'm willing to guess other Nubblites aren't either, so you may have to enlighten us.
But the central tenet of what you are saying seems to be much more an emotional one, trying to justify how you "feel" (and remember, what you feel is not anything transcendent in reality; it only feels that way because of the drug-like biochemical reactions going on in your body).
You're using the age old concept of "science doesn't have all the answers and _________ fills a human need by claiming they have all the answers, or at least answers that you proclaim science will never solve (simply because science has not solved them yet). What if, like cancer, science finds a way to quell these questions from burning up inside you? If we can make such a thing go away, does it continue to be an object of importance?
If you are saying that Dawkins has flaws in his arguments because he is not extremely well versed in the various philosophies surrounding and including Rationalism, then you are probably correct. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist by trade and Sam Harris is a Neuroscientist by trade. There are bound to be gaps in their knowledge that they haven't included for readers like you.
That being said, without specifically pointing out all the areas they have mentioned in their respective prolific writings, things that in the science world, point to the very small probability of anything more than "science" existing, then you are simply ignoring what they (and the majority of the scientific consensus) have to say.
But when you read a book like the one you recently did about the Indian fellow who, may be a genius, ties the case for god to Hinduism, I would need to read a lot more respected scientists echoing his conclusions before I am able to accept what he has to say as "the most probable answer we have thus far".
On top of that, your rationalist sources, most of them anyways, weren't around to see Darwin, let alone the vast scientific knowledge we have discovered since their time, that point to a fairly Materialistic, existential existence.
Science realizes humans aren't at the center of everything, and doesn't believe that there "must be a purpose simply because we rule the planet". Does Rationalism?