Acolyte,

Hold it buddy. For all we know the tooth fairy or Roman gods could exist or have existed at one time. To say that because something has not been empirically verified, isn't logically comprehended, or isn't empirically testable, does not mean it isn't true. It's like saying because we have not seen a black swan, there are no black swans. At a time in human history Europeans would have only experience white swans and theorized they were white, but when Australia was discovered they learned there were black swans. This meant their theory about swans needed to be revised.

This is why verificationism, or the idea that our experiences guarantee our theories are truth-correlative, fell out of favor. Now science goes with falsifiability, which avoids this problem. We don't dismiss that black swans exist, but it's the theory we stick to until it's proven false (finding one in Australia).

Now God could exist. So could Santa Clause or Zeus. We can't disprove they exist, because they aren't empirically testable. Some ideas part of Christianity may be disprovable, but not God himself. Nonetheless, there is reason to prefer scientific theories over the God theory. At least scientific theories give us the ability to predict an outcome, and it does so way better than the God theory does mind you.

I simply just dismiss theories that are

1. Unable to be empirically tested
2. Are complex and are capable of being further reduced
3. Not supported by evidence
4. Not logically coherent

I limit my beliefs to theories that match the scientific criterion for very practical reasons, not because I assert they are truth-correlative.

But it's a mistake to assert that theories well supported by a large empirical database are

1. Truth correlative
2. Exhaust all other possibilities

Those implicit assumptions you are making are false and can be easily slammed down.

Blame Nolio!

If you said a fairy put a spear in to the waters and that's how America formed, I would laugh and dismiss it.

If it wasn't for Metternich or Lord Nelson, Napoleon may have turned Europe in to an Empire of Reason. The days of enlightened despots were awesome.

Don't bash European monarchs. Some of them were really cool.

Yeah, and those trends reflect the trends of losers, those who are weak and go nowhere in life. There's a herd mentality attached with them.

Well, granted hip hop was originally a means to reduce violence in New York City. But that doesn't matter, I still disapprove of it.

People valuing dumbness, bags on their heads, rap, chains, break dancing, and baggy clothing... so uncivilized.

Lol. The Belgians are funny

Kemp, I thought you disappeared forever. Welcome back man.

1.  Loz

Blame the Democrats.

They forced the companies to loan to poor people with 0% downpayment

Then they added a bunch of earmarks in to the bailout bill, robbing money at the expense of Americans to fund side projects and organizations like Acorn.

THE DEMOCRATS MUST BE FOREVER REMOVED FROM OFFICE! WHAT THEY DO IS TREASON!

DPS,

No science's attitude toward something that can not be proven false is to suspend judgment. And the theories are viewed not as being truth-correlative, but as the best theory available at the time that fits criteria, such as testability and simplicity etc.

Empiricism is subject to skeptical doubt, yes. The classical skeptics created arguments to disprove all intellectuals, whether their beliefs were based on faith or experience. In other words, both the proto-scientists of the classical period and the religious hated them. To discredit the empiricists, they showed that experience can not be truth-correlative because to say so would collapse in to a circular argument. They also showed that to believe in P would require an infinite chain of justification. So if you believe in P, you justify it by Q. To justify Q, J, and J by C and ad infinitum. Imagine the kid who keeps saying "why?" to every answer you offer. The Skeptics were so annoying, they even questioned whether you could know if you had 5 fingers or not.

Not only did they create skeptical doubt for proto-scientists, they also did the same for Mathematicians. They created a number of puzzles that many remain unsolved. In other words, the Skeptics created arguments to disprove anyone who committed themselves to a belief without having beliefs themselves. Rather they decided to suspend judgment about everything.

I have seen some skeptical arguments here, and I'm a skeptic myself. I have offered mostly empirical arguments, but now that skeptical arguments are being used against empiricism, I am going to get a little more precise. The scientific method may not lead to theories that are truth-correlative, but it is much more instrumental than religion is. For example, we experience that science helps us better predict outcomes and its theories are testable, and that is my reason for favoring science over religion. Religion is not testable and it does nothing to help us reliably predict outcomes.

You can question the truth-correlation with both science and religion. But at least science has instrumental value (it's useful).