[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

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?

Let's slow down. So far I have not said that there is a meaning to life, or what it might be, all I've said is that, if there is one, science is not equipped to answer it.

I would also like to direct your attention to what you call "vague and intangible philosophical constructs". This is a wordy way of saying "an un-empirical approach", which is exactly my point. There are things beyond the reach of sensory truth.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

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.

Rationalism is defined as: "A method in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive."

For example, mathematics is rational.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

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).

I'm not talking about feelings or emotions at all. You're so eager to pounce that you're projecting things onto me, which I may or may not bring up in the future, and glossing over what I've actually said thus far. I bring this up because I want to keep this orderly, and go point by point. Once we establish some foundations we can continue on to their implications.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

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?

No. What I'm saying is that science may eventually answer all naturalistic questions, but it cannot ever answer philosophical ones. To put it more simply, it would be like trying to hammer a nail in using a piece of paper, when what you really need is a hammer; it's simply not the right tool for the job.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

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.

Again, you're approaching this from a purely empirical point of view, which is exactly what I use to do too. Surely you don't believe there is nothing outside of science? Think about it for a minute. I'm not even talking in the metaphysical sense.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

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?

There are plenty of brilliant people who have been around long after Darwin and and who aren't Materialists. Rationalism does not say there must be a purpose simply because we rule the planet, not.


Now, before I move on to things like meaning and purpose, I'm going to stop here so you can respond to what I've said, because if we can't first hash out this issue of pure empiricism, or at least come to a mutual understanding of what it is and means, then there's no use going forward. The same goes for Rationalism.

As to a priori knowledge, it has its proponents and critics.