Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

You might be interested to know that it is empircism that is absolutely fundamental to the scientific method, not rationalism. Pure reason alone is useless in science, primarily because repeatable experiments are required to test hypotheses and predictions (in order to disprove a theory).

Of course. I'd say "pure reason" is useless anywhere, personally, but that doesn't address the specifics of what we might use to supplement it (and evidence that flies against the face of reason is looked at pretty suspiciously)

Another good example is "empathy". I believe that the subjective experience of empathy is entirely beyond the scope of reason.

Except that it isn't, you'll need more than "beliefs" to float this one.

Rationalism can be used to theoretically reflect the concept of empathy, but more sense can be made of empathy if one supplements pure reason with Husserl's phenomenology, for example.

Care to elaborate upon why you believe this to be the case?

You could have used a better example than something that is so obviously subjective and trivial. There are some intense topics, in which people do hold vehement "black and white" viewpoints that they hold as true or right. Examples: "abortion is wrong" or "Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only correct interpretation". These black and white opinions do obviously exist, and feel very true to the eye of the beholder.

Is it obviously subjective and trivial, explain yourself - I now claim that vanilla is objectively better than chocolate and the disagreement is of the utmost importance..... both propositions -"feel very true" to me.

Now back to reality- whether any given interpretation of the evidence "feels very true" to the observer is irrelevant - as I have already explained posts ago. Unless thats all you're going for "feels very true" -without a hope in hell of establishing "is very true".