Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Not just assumptions like you do.
My arguments for religion are very much grounded in empiricism. There is nothing wrong with empiricism it is a very powerful tool for finding truth.
Science is great but it has its own limitations and a priori assumptions as all human systems do.
What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and theology)http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1
Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.
Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.
Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.
*
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?
Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).
So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.
*
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science has (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say.
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?