To reason that science hasn't found any evidence for God thus no weight should be given it as an explaination for the unknown is circular reasoning: science deals with the natural not the supernatural. It cannot use lack of natural evidence to comment on supernatural evidence.
It's not logically coherent for there to be a supernatural realm that can still affect or influence the natural one. If it can, then it was part of the natural realm all along. But that's not really the topic here, I guess.
There is no more reason to suppose Scientism is any better an explaination than Goddidit for stuff we don't know now yet.
Well, sure there is, if you accept the basic effecacy of induction. If you don't, which is an entirely reasonable position (since the only evidence for the validity of induction is inductive), you reject all of science altogether.
I mean, it's up to you. If induction is to be accepted as valid, and you're going to accept the findings of science which are inductive, then induction also informs us that scientific knowledge is likely going to expand, not contract, indefinately, out to the very limits of what can be known.
It 'achieves' this by raising "objective, empirical evidence" above all other means of knowing - without of course, giving anybody a reason why this should be taken to be the case.
I seem to recall giving you a reason, many months ago, in another thread. You had no answer but swore that you would give it much thought.
Now you appear confident enough to pose the question again, so either you figured it out and I missed it, or you're hoping no one will remember that you were unable to successfully challenge the superiority of empiricism.
I'm asking for Scientism adherents to put up empirical evidence as to why empiricism rules
Show me someone who rails about the evils of "scientism" and I'll show you someone who took a philosophy of science class when they should have taken a science class.