2 Answers typically are impartial in nature. The phrases "rightly criticized" and "where they don't belong" are superfluous choices that add no real substance to the answer, they simply insert the original author's own biases into the response as if his opinion were fact.
source | link

Neither Harris nor Hitchens dismiss or ridicule non-empirical philosophy itself. Harris, in particular, calls himself a philosopher and studies Eastern religions and similar traditions. What they ridicule, and rightly so, are the many attempts by philosophy and religion to make pronouncements about the physical world based on their non-empirical philosophy.

The existence of a God, as you point out, may well be a non-empirical question. But the existence of a being that creates physical matter, hears prayers, and intervenes in human lives is 100% empirical. Something like the value of studying history might be a non-empirical question. But the question of what methods of studying history and what sources are reliable is 100% empirical. Those who choose to believe in a personal God that answers prayers, or the historicity of the Exodus, or other such things in the complete absence of evidence for them are rightly criticized for bringing their "spiritual" matters into the real world where they don't belong.

There probably are people who ridicule the non-empirical (Tyson is probably a better example). I suspect that they will continue to do so until you or someone can show them some specific way in which that affects their lives and well-being. That the physical world affects our well-being is clearly beyond doubt, and empirical science is clearly superior to every other epistemology for revealing that.

Neither Harris nor Hitchens dismiss or ridicule non-empirical philosophy itself. Harris, in particular, calls himself a philosopher and studies Eastern religions and similar traditions. What they ridicule, and rightly so, are the many attempts by philosophy and religion to make pronouncements about the physical world based on their non-empirical philosophy.

The existence of a God, as you point out, may well be a non-empirical question. But the existence of a being that creates physical matter, hears prayers, and intervenes in human lives is 100% empirical. Something like the value of studying history might be a non-empirical question. But the question of what methods of studying history and what sources are reliable is 100% empirical. Those who choose to believe in a personal God that answers prayers, or the historicity of the Exodus, or other such things in the complete absence of evidence for them are rightly criticized for bringing their "spiritual" matters into the real world where they don't belong.

There probably are people who ridicule the non-empirical (Tyson is probably a better example). I suspect that they will continue to do so until you or someone can show them some specific way in which that affects their lives and well-being. That the physical world affects our well-being is clearly beyond doubt, and empirical science is clearly superior to every other epistemology for revealing that.

Neither Harris nor Hitchens dismiss or ridicule non-empirical philosophy itself. Harris, in particular, calls himself a philosopher and studies Eastern religions and similar traditions. What they ridicule, and rightly so, are the many attempts by philosophy and religion to make pronouncements about the physical world based on their non-empirical philosophy.

The existence of a God, as you point out, may well be a non-empirical question. But the existence of a being that creates physical matter, hears prayers, and intervenes in human lives is 100% empirical. Something like the value of studying history might be a non-empirical question. But the question of what methods of studying history and what sources are reliable is 100% empirical. Those who choose to believe in a personal God that answers prayers, or the historicity of the Exodus, or other such things in the complete absence of evidence for them are criticized for bringing their "spiritual" matters into the real world.

There probably are people who ridicule the non-empirical (Tyson is probably a better example). I suspect that they will continue to do so until you or someone can show them some specific way in which that affects their lives and well-being. That the physical world affects our well-being is clearly beyond doubt, and empirical science is clearly superior to every other epistemology for revealing that.

1
source | link

Neither Harris nor Hitchens dismiss or ridicule non-empirical philosophy itself. Harris, in particular, calls himself a philosopher and studies Eastern religions and similar traditions. What they ridicule, and rightly so, are the many attempts by philosophy and religion to make pronouncements about the physical world based on their non-empirical philosophy.

The existence of a God, as you point out, may well be a non-empirical question. But the existence of a being that creates physical matter, hears prayers, and intervenes in human lives is 100% empirical. Something like the value of studying history might be a non-empirical question. But the question of what methods of studying history and what sources are reliable is 100% empirical. Those who choose to believe in a personal God that answers prayers, or the historicity of the Exodus, or other such things in the complete absence of evidence for them are rightly criticized for bringing their "spiritual" matters into the real world where they don't belong.

There probably are people who ridicule the non-empirical (Tyson is probably a better example). I suspect that they will continue to do so until you or someone can show them some specific way in which that affects their lives and well-being. That the physical world affects our well-being is clearly beyond doubt, and empirical science is clearly superior to every other epistemology for revealing that.