How reliable is science? Status quo (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Monday, May 21, 2012, 09:05 (4568 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Logic and rationality also need intuition for a complete mental capacity:-http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Faith+logic+exist+study+contends/6649861/story.html-I agree wholeheartedly with most of this article, except for the author's apparent acceptance of the claim that atheism is based on rational thinking. While it's clear that the tales told by most religions have no rational basis, we are still stuck with unsolved mysteries like the source of life and of consciousness. I see nothing rational in the belief ... essential to atheism ... that these must have been due to a series of lucky breaks. Nor would I regard such belief as in any way "scientific".-"In other words, as Einstein suggested, authentic scientists may well be rational and analytic - but they also have imagination, vision, empathy and a sense of values and esthetics. All of which helps guide them in their intellectual pursuits.
In that way, scientists are just like many spiritual people."-Again I agree with the thought underlying this conclusion, but why "like"? Throughout history, many scientists HAVE been "spiritual people". The fact that atheist materialists study material realities, and hope (Dawkins uses this very verb) to find material solutions to the above mysteries, does not give any scientific or "rational" support to their beliefs! Science is neither theistic nor atheistic. Science is the study of the material world. The moment scientists allow their personal beliefs (of whatever shade) to colour their studies, they cease to be scientists and are no more rational than the rest of us.