If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?

[vulcanlogician]

When you see how much of modern science assumes Plato, he seems much less antiquated and more of a visionary.

I agree that most scientists lapse into Platonism, but I'm not sure that Platonism can be defended.  I find myself talking like a Platonist, but in reality, both science and mathematics are based on Pragmatism.

Science never reveals true forms.  We discover patterns that are useful, and create theories based on the predictive ability of those patterns.  The patterns themselves may be real, but we notice them because we find them useful.  The theories we create are never Platonically real - they are more like "stories" that happen to work a lot better than the old stories.

As much as each "story" eventually proves inaccurate, the point is, science is always replacing that story with a "more true" story. It looks for what is "eternally true" and each iteration of the story (Galilean/Newtonian/Einsteinian) is one more stepping stone, one more bit of progress toward what is eternally true. And (in that sense) science doesn't escape Platonism.

I get what you mean about pragmatism. But "pragmatism toward what end?" 

Pragmatism can't exist in a vacuum. It needs a goal to lean on. The goal of science and philosophy is discovering what is true, decipherable, intelligible. Whence comes this goal? Is this goal more achievable by pure pragmatism? Or does the search for an ultimate form (as misguided that search may be) actually aid the enterprise?

I think it does. But it's a matter worth arguing, even if I'm wrong.

edit: Not to be pedantic. I just genuinely think there's something to Plato's approach. At the very least, I want to say that the Platonic model is useful and counts as a kind of pragmatism of its own, just like math and science.

[Ahriman]

A world full of rational people, is what Jesus would want. So people who fancy themselves rational beings, but reject Jesus, might want to give their rejection a second thought; their rationality is not at odds with the teachings of Jesus, but in accordance with them. A perfect example of the rationality of Jesus' teachings, is when some people are about to kill a woman for being a whore, and Jesus says to the people, "Let him who has not sinned, cast the first stone", and all the people go away, and the woman is not killed. Of course, Jesus was being perfectly rational when He did this, because why would you kill someone for sinning, if you are a sinner yourself? This incident is a teaching against hypocrisy, and I think we can all agree, that hypocrisy is irrational.

[Foxaèr]

If Jesus believers could reason, they wouldn't be theists.

[Ahriman]

If Jesus believers could reason, they wouldn't be theists.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a person believed in Jesus' teachings, but did not believe in God. Would you consider that person a theist?

[The Grand Nudger]

Theism is the belief in a personal and intervening god. So, no.

[Ahriman]

Theism is the belief in a personal and intervening god.  So, no.

So followers of Jesus are atheists.

[Mister Agenda]

Theism is the belief in a personal and intervening god.  So, no.

So followers of Jesus are atheists.

Um...followers of Jesus who don't believe in God are atheists.

[Ahriman]

So followers of Jesus are atheists.

Um...followers of Jesus who don't believe in God are atheists.

That's like, the opposite of what I am. I believe in God, very strongly, but I don't care for Jesus' message.

[Mister Agenda]

A lot of it IS about forgiveness, humility, and kindness. That doesn't set well with a lot of folks.

[Ahriman]

A lot of it IS about forgiveness, humility, and kindness. That doesn't set well with a lot of folks.

Yeah I don't care about that shit. I'm more of a "I got mine, Jack" kind of guy. I believe God has graciously given me all the good things I have, and now it's up to me, to cherish those good things.