Oh, sure, we operate from beliefs that are - to us as individuals - at that point in time, completely opaque, all the time. I don’t understand how this tablet pc works, there may well be goblins inside using nanoscopic pigeons to carry my messages to this magical forum.
But my experience of it is consistant. I type, type appears. Same with gravity, I jump, I come back down.
Science also advances based on observations that are unfalsifiable logically and/or theoretically for as long as those observations are consistant with preceding events. The ‘repeatability’ clause for experiments. Do A, get B. This is science:
Dumbass 1. Holy fuck, did you see that…?
Dumbass 2. Whut…?
Dumbass 1. I did this, and that happened.
Dumbass 2. Whoa dude, do it again.
Dumbass 1. K, watch.
Dumbass 2. Holy shit that’s weird.
Dumbass 1. You try. Do this this and this.
Dumbass 2. Whoa, I see what you mean. What is that about…?
Dumbass 1. Dunno. Better come up with a theory to 'splain this shit.
Dumbass 2. Yeah, this consistently repeatable example of a phenomenon inconsistent with my previous experience of the world is freaking me out dude…
Doesn’t matter if realism is falsifiable, only that it is consistent to an observer who experiences it.
And that is the huge difference between things like god, and this tablet pc. Consistency.
Believeing in the same thing, and experiencing the same thing, are massively different concepts. If I heat water to boiling point, I see steam. Liquid to gas. Amazing. You do the same, wow, you also see steam. Hallelujah. But…
A goes to church, god talks to them. B goes to church, nothing happens. C takes a bunch of drugs, sees god. D takes a bunch of drugs, sees his mum chasing him with a pickaxe shaped like tinkywinky from the teletubbies. E prays for intervention, gets well. F prays for intervention, dies of cancer anyway.
There is no way, okay, that we have discovered ‘so far’ in what…? 200,000 years, to consistently experience god. As in ‘do A, recieve god’. Actually, I dunno, maybe I’ve been out of the loop too long. Do you know a 100%, sure-fire way of experiencing god…? No cheating, it has to be the exact same experience of god as you would get if you and I followed the exact same sequence of behaviour or thought process or drugs or transcranial magnetic stimulation or argh, yoga pose or diet or magic words or fungal infection or near-fatal accident or tantric sexual marathon.
If not, then the observational and experiential avenues of approaching god seem closed to us. Half of empiricism gone out the window. We are left then, with theoretical and logical approaches.
And pure theory and logic fall into the catagory to which falsifiabilty applies.
I never said they weren’t useful, that’s another arguement entirely. I said they were worthless, as foundations for belief. Look:
A one dollar bill, in isolation, purely as a object, is kinda worthless, but as part of the monetary system - which accepts it as viable currency for transactions - very useful. Same with a dis/belief in god. In isolation, a person believeing or disbelieving in god is not particualarly useful at all to them, but in the context of a religious/secular society - that accepts simply holding this type of belief either way as having value - very useful. But in this situation, the actual veracity/falsifiabilty/whatever of the belief isn’t important, only that it is held, shared, and obeyed. And, to a lesser extent, is a reliable predictor of behaviour. But that’s yet another argument lol.