I think Newton's metaphor of a child picking up pebbles and shells on a beach with a vast ocean of the undiscovered before him is telling, and displays a humility strikingly absent from the scientism displayed by such as Dawkins.
Can the rationalist explain why it is that he is rational, beyond appeals to Darwinian materialism and evolutionary survival as if it actually explained such things as minds,thoughts and rationality.

Flann 5 wrote:I think Newton's metaphor of a child picking up pebbles and shells on a beach with a vast ocean of the undiscovered before him is telling, and displays a humility strikingly absent from the scientism displayed by such as Dawkins.
Can the rationalist explain why it is that he is rational, beyond appeals to Darwinian materialism and evolutionary survival as if it actually explained such things as minds,thoughts and rationality.

This thread looks a lot like one Ant's strawmen. If anything, rationalists (I kind of like that term) will say how limited we are and how easily led astray by our own foibles. Critical thinking is all about reflecting on our own biases and prejudices and mental shortcuts that we tend to take that often lead to error. I've said science is like a flashlight probing through the darkness. So just because we have a confidence in science as a flashlight in the darkness, it doesn't suggest by any stretch of the imagination that we or anyone claims that rational thought can reveal all the truths of the universe. I'm pretty sure no one has ever made such a claim.

Arrogance is a human weakness that affects many different kinds of people (probably not just atheists). It's funny how Dawkins has become the Big Bad Bogeyman for believers. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but most of his arguments are quite sound. Much is attributed to him in this back-handed way without directly quoting from the man himself or providing the context of his argument. This seems an attempt to poison the well without engaging in the arguments, an evasion. Why don't you quote the man directly and we can discus whether his ideas have merit.

There is some good philosophy in that video. Dancing around the differences between irrational analytic propositions. Has anyone seen the recent Turing test winning robots? They win by trickery, by stating irrational things just like a human would, and other humans think they are more than a robot for that. We're so collectively dumb sometimes.

I find it strange also that this is somehow twisted against science. Flann, I think it's my fault, but you sound polarized beyond repair. Darwinian materialism isn't even a thing. Evolution doesn't answer everything, and a man like Dawkins would admit the limits of his knowledge. In my experience, it is the dogmatic evangelical that proclaims an absolute worldview, without room for update or change.
Compare the extreme end of the naturalist spectrum vs the extreme end of the supernaturalist spectrum.

I think also that the recent announcement of the detection of gravity waves had been verified is an example of the scientific community failing itself and the public.
It's troubling that the scientific community could fail to properly check itself prior to making a grand public announcement.
Hubris?

How might this impact public trust in the future with issues like global warming?

And what about the hapless scientific ideologue who wishes to support Science by publicly chastising those that are characterized as unsupportive of science because of their religious worldview?
A common retort is that the scientific consensus is what establishes facts about our world.
Therefor to be skeptical of the consensus is to be irrational.

We see a lot of congratulations being exchanged among like minded people who unite to denounce people that do not place all their faith in the scientific community.
A lot of overt judgement of people and their opinions, beliefs, worldviews, takes place on social media.

Evolutionary psychologists have coined the phrase "altruistic punishment"
I think it describes the behavior of certain cyber communities, like new atheists, who have a strong desire to adopt the roles of prosecutors who call out "religious" people to defend their beliefs.
These religious naysayers develop a sense of worth because of their BELIEF that they are contributing to the public good by prosecuting and ultimately judging those guilty of not supporting the consensus

Telling someone they are beyond repair can obviously be taken as a polarizing comment (ie "you are broken and need fixing and people like me are the repairmen you need")

Atheist scientism is Religion minus humility of any kind which makes it that much more pernicious.
It is an ideology that justifies itself and accepts responsibility for nothing because of its weak social obligations.

"An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that atheists have a higher suicide rate than theists.[12] According to William Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations" - wiki

That is why, if anything, theism has proven itself to be the superior "meme/idea" because of its ultimate concern for community and the fostering of goodwill.
There is no questioning the need to stamp out religious extremism.
But the ideology of scientism mixed with secularism is just as poisonous.

Fortune be with us - history has shown this brand of religious atheism utterly depresses the infected host and eventually frustrates its offspring.
See the grand rise of theism among the children of godless parents and grandparents.
Their children wish to demonstrate greater responsibility to society and be set free of godless dogma that imposes itself on what eventually comes natural, belief in something greater outside of us.

The children of atheist zealots need no fixing from theists.
They will fix themselves
That is my prayer for them.

It's troubling that the scientific community could fail to properly check itself prior to making a grand public announcement.
Hubris?

Yeah, people are dumb. But look how quickly the failure was exposed. Science corrects the idiocy of it's adherents. It's an excellent example of why we need to outsource the verification of our knowledge to method. Without it, our hubris and stubborness and emotion-based beliefs reign supreme. The alternative is beliefs staying the same for thousands of years. Can you imagine?

Atheist scientism is Religion minus humility of any kind which makes it that much more pernicious.

Yeah, except no. Basically the opposite. When science screws up, and the mistake is noted, change happens. Unlike religions, which hold to the same 2,000 year old, demonstrably false book with absolute certainty despite minimal justification.

"An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that atheists have a higher suicide rate than theists.[12] According to William Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations" - wiki

Is this a confirmation bias duel challenge? I'll see your "suggestion" and raise you "facts":

1.) Atheists only make up .07% of the prison population, compared to 2.4% of the national population.
2.) The intellectual elite of our country are primarily atheistic, representing 93% of those in the National Academy of Sciences.



But really, both of our comments are subject to scrutiny and require disclaimers and addendums. It would be juvenile for either of us to be serious.

Interbane wrote:Is this a confirmation bias duel challenge? I'll see your "suggestion" and raise you "facts":

1.) Atheists only make up .07% of the prison population, compared to 2.4% of the national population.
2.) The intellectual elite of our country are primarily atheistic, representing 93% of those in the National Academy of Sciences.

Here are some stats on Nobel prize winners. I think it is difficult to draw hard conclusions from statistics for many reasons but they can provide grounds for a loose view of things. Here is: Scientists reject religion? O.k Got the link right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4vxcaDePNI

our comments are subject to scrutiny and require disclaimers and addendums. It would be juvenile for either of us to be serious.

Plus, I can't view videos at my current location. There's something else with videos as well. Lacking text to quote and analyze, videos always seem to be propaganda to me. Like the author of the video is trying to veil his arguments in a more difficult to analyze medium. Any analysis requires a timestamp and voice to text transcripting before analysis starts.

Going back to the original sentence i.e. the title of the thread. It often helps it seems, considering the fog created by some afterwards...

Let's take it as a true statement. And then... so what?

The again basic logic failing, and it is a classic twisting of set theory (no point in going into philosophy, it can be shown at the puny level of sets...): rational thought failing to reveal ALL truths in the Universe is somehow proving that rational thought is inherently inferior to... what? The mantra-like repetition of dogmas that does not involve ANY reasoning whatsoever? (as reasoning is... anyway a failure, if it can not reveal ALL... and let's loop and loop around).