When you state a qualitative equivalence of science of the gaps and god of the gaps you are. We know science has a capacity to explain aspects of reality, but no such capacity has been demonstrated in respect to gods or religion.
The equivalence is not coming from me. You have people saying that mysteries of the universe are filled with the stop gap medium of God. I am pointing that, regardless of their ideas about God, they are doing the
exact same thing in the name of science. I say "in the name of" because there is a legitimate field for science, but one will certainly struggle if they bring such an epistemologically poor tool to the grander problems of cosmology.
Take this thread OP as an example : there is the suggestion that the idea of God is problematic since it lacks a cause and stands outside of empirical investigation. Yet in the same measure, peope have no problem with an eternal universe, even though the
exact same problems of definition and veracity are present.
So on one hand, you have the presence of a problem that highlights the apparent shortcoming of an approach ("How can God exist if He has no cause?"), yet the same problem, far from being merely glossed over or swept under the carpet, assumes airs of self importance and authority when (inappropriately) coupled with science ("An eternal uncaused universe is fully compatible with a scientific model" ... nevermind that the scientific model has neither any means to verify or need for an eternal, uncaused universe).
Therein lies the synonymity.
Why wouldn't empiricism be the basis for rational contemplation of all things?
Because our senses are limited. The best hope empiricism can deliver on is but a miniscule, self referential slice of the full gamut of the macro and microcosm.
All that we personally and collectively know has been derived through empirical means.
As mentioned already, not a fact. There are many ways to disect or interpret epistemological fields, but as an offering :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana
Pratyakṣa means perception.
Anumāna means inference.
Upamāna means comparison and analogy.
Arthāpatti means postulation, derivation from circumstances
Anupalabdi means non-perception, negative/cognitive proof
Śabda means relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts.
Out of those, which field, if applied correctly, do you think is capable, given equivelent employment of reserves of time and determination, of delivering the greatest returns?
Or to put it another way, what epistemology do you think has recourse to subject matter above and beyond the other five?
Our minds would essentially be blank slates without the use of our senses, rendering meaningful contemplation of any kind an impossibility.
Generally you will find that epistemological applications function according to particular circumstances or problems. IOW successful application is more about bringing the correct epistemology to the correct problem, rather than enthusiastic fist pumping that one particular approach kicks ass for all problems.
You mean professionals that specialize in the interpretation of empirical data?
Unless you are also sufficiently qualified to critique such interpretations, the situation does not present itself as a problem solved by (your) empirical prowess. I mean technically the ins and outs of the universe and more are accepted as being directly perceived by God, yet I'm pretty sure you would not accept that as grounds for establishing religion as empirical.
Yes, all of the above. I can’t recall the last time I had any use for the professional assistance of a religious philosopher.
I think Buddha said it nicely when he said he had come to only teach two things : suffering and relief from suffering. If someone is not interested to learn about part 2 it means they are still trying to make the grade on part 1.
