The unstated assumption here seems to be that for something to be reasonable or rational it must also be subject to empirical verification, yet many things in such fields as philosophy aren't subject to empirical verification, yet I'm hesitant to call them non-reasonable or non-rational.

Not really, though making predictions that are subject to empirical falsifiability is a reasonable framework.
Any philosophy that is not orderly, consistent, and logically defensible is not reasonable or rational.
Many attempts have been made to make such a defense of the existence of God or for belief in God*, but to date all have fallen flat. The choice to believe in a god is not based on logic and every attempt I have seen made at a logical defense of that belief has been undertaken in an attempt to integrate a personal faith into an otherwise logically ordered world view** and as stated above all such attempts have, to this point, failed. This is not to say that faith in any particular religious world view is ultimately false. I can no more prove that it is false than they can prove that it is true.

But we don't have evidence to the contrary.

Well you have finally come full circle and are arguing against Bailey's and by extension your original stance. If you don't think we have evidence that it is not necessary to have an undetectable elf for the working of refrigerator lights (whether he actually participates or not), then you cannot logically also believe that we have evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old. Welcome to Huckabee world.

OK so a harmful virus gets stronger by mutating and and it some how is the same as every other living thing getting weaker buy being killed buy mutating viruses and such

Yes, when the viruses and bacteria mutate in a way beneficial to them (as in the case of antibiotic resistance) they get stronger. These stronger organisms survive to reproduce when the organisms that do not have these beneficial mutations (say antibiotic resistance) do not.

lalalalalalalala what are you talking about?

I guess that is the noise you make when you are sticking your fingers in your ears so you can ignore evidence counter to your opinion.

* name the enlightenment thinker and he probably tried
** please point me to any counter examples

"All mutations are harmful"??? Where on earth is the justification for that (totally erroneous) statement?

name one thats not.

When viruses mutate to overcome our immune systems are they getting weaker? When bacteria mutate to overcome antibiotics are they getting weaker. When moths mutate to more successfully mimic their surroundings and avoid predation, are they are getting weaker? The list goes on but you should get the point.

lol reach farther into nothingness and you pull out what?

OK so a harmful virus gets stronger by mutating and and it some how is the same as every other living thing getting weaker buy being killed buy mutating viruses and such lalalalalalalala what are you talking about?

and if you have not learned that your moth example has been shown to be a fiction I'm not sure if I can help you, or are you talking about "little chum"?

oh ya I forgot that you believe that humans and such are just the ancestors of viruses, lol.

Yes. Those beliefs may or may not be true, but belief in them is not based on reason and so they are not reasonable nor are they rational.

I'm not sure the is true. The unstated assumption here seems to be that for something to be reasonable or rational it must also be subject to empirical verification, yet many things in such fields as philosophy aren't subject to empirical verification, yet I'm hesitant to call them non-reasonable or non-rational.

If someone insists that the elf, fairy, monster, or god is necessary for said events to occur in spite of evidence to the contrary then I question their willingness or ability to be rational.

But we don't have evidence to the contrary. At best you can only say that such assumptions are not warranted (given all that we know so far), not that they aren't true.

Michael,

Actually, what you are talking about is the Principle of Parsimony which is a stronger variant of Occam's Razor. And further, it does not have the empirical verification that you seem to elevating to such a high position. Sure it is a spiffy metaphysical concept...damned useful and I myself like it probably as much as you, but there is not much more going for it other than the logic of the position and...your (and my) emotional attachment to it. :-p

Probability isn't subjective.

Tell that to a Subjective Bayesian and he'll have a good laugh. Of course it is subjective.

Probability is predictive, role a 6-sided dice and you will average any specific number 1/6 of the rolls. It doesn't matter if you do it, I do it, or a computer does it, the more you roll the closer you get to a 1/6 average.

That is a very nice "frequentist" definition of probability. Now, what is the probability of the New England Patriots winning their next game? How can one make valid probability statements about one shot events? According to your definition you can't. In fact, you can't make any valid probability statements since you can't verify empirically that they are true. You can't perform an infinite number of trials so you make an appeal to limits. Hence your definition of probability really doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind. Granted, many people share your definition, but then again popularity of a view or argument doesn't make it true either. Heck, even the "objective" view probability that people like Keynes had was based on the "reasonable" man argument and common knowledge.

You are assigning all of the properties of an electron to your "elf" such that any test that would confirm the electromechanical theory would also confirm your elf theory.

Right, and it also makes it very resistant (invulnerable?) to empirical verification. Now, in science we usually toss aside such "theories" since they are better explained by simpler theories. Still, just because such a view is worthless in science doesn't mean it is worthless everywhere.

My elf is named Maxwell, and he plays with electrons all the time.

So the elf rides in the power line, and won't turn on the light if he can't ride through to the frig.

You didn't specify massless until after my comment about giving the elf the properties of an electron.

Why, Michael, I didn't call my pet elf an electron (he would be quite insulted by that), and obviously, my elf can have whatever properties and capabilities he wants to have, such as being invisible, silent, orderless, and massless, etc. Undetectable, in other words, when he wants to be. Where God = mere Evolution came from I have no idea. That is ridiculous.

You are assigning all of the properties of an electron to your "elf" such that any test that would confirm the electromechanical theory would also confirm your elf theory. In doing this, you are confirming the same theory, just using the term "elf" instead of "electron". If you do the same to your definition of God such that he fits the predictions of Evolution theory, that doesn't change Evolution theory.

GG, I have no idea where your God argument came from either, but it couldn't have been from my elf. After all, he is merely an elf. He can't compete with a real God, don't you agree?

So the elf rides in the power line, and won't turn on the light if he can't ride through to the frig.

Calling electrons "elf" doesn't change the nature of electricity, just the nature of the elf. Calling evolution "God" doesn't change the nature of evolution, it changes nature of God.

Not bad, but you forgot the part about probability being subjective...i.e. something the individual makes up in their head. I can make up the elf in the fridge in my head too, doesn't make it real though, does it?

Probability isn't subjective. Probability is predictive, role a 6-sided dice and you will average any specific number 1/6 of the rolls. It doesn't matter if you do it, I do it, or a computer does it, the more you roll the closer you get to a 1/6 average.

"Love" is something an individual makes up in their head, I'll grant you that. But again, I can make predictions based on the existence of that or similar concepts in someone else's head. If you believe there is an elf in your refrigerator (or God in heaven), I can make predictions based on you having that belief. Your belief is therefore something real, what you believe in is not necessarily real.

True, but aren't we talking about beliefs that are beyond empirical testing and hence neither provable nor disprovable? As such, we can't comment on a person's rationality/sanity given this.

No, we are talking about evolution, a science that can be and has been proven to be an accurate description of how species change over time. Disbelief in that, or belief with unnecessary qualifiers, is unreasonable.

To go back to the refrigerator elf, if your theory of mechanics and electricity can explain the operation of the refrigerator light without the need of an elf, and can make verifiable predictions (no power=no light), then either disbelieving the electormechanical theory, or believing that "the elf has a hand in it", is unreasonable.

Reason dictates that you believe the explanation that provides verifiable, repeatable predictions without unnecessary assumptions or additions (Occum's Razor)

True, but aren't we talking about beliefs that are beyond empirical testing and hence neither provable nor disprovable?

Yes. Those beliefs may or may not be true, but belief in them is not based on reason and so they are not reasonable nor are they rational. They are not problematic and people should certainly be allowed to believe in them and make whatever obeisance to them they feel appropriate, but that does not make those beliefs rational.
If someone insists that the elf, fairy, monster, or god is necessary for said events to occur in spite of evidence to the contrary then I question their willingness or ability to be rational.

As such, we can't comment on a person's rationality/sanity given this.

That is only true if the person does not insist that said entity must be there in spite of the evidence, rather than simply that they believe said entity to be there and exerting some influence.

Most people in our society would view someone who believed in the elf, fairy, or monster to be a loon or at the least an eccentric, yet they give a pass on belief in an entity with equally strong evidence for its existence. In fact not only do they give that belief a pass they laud it and discriminate against those who do not share that belief.

Sanity is a distinctly different proposition. I have not said that people with magical, mystical, or religious beliefs are insane nor have I implied it. I have merely said that those beliefs are not based on reason and thus are not reasonable. Do you really disagree on this point? If so is that disagreement based on you using a different definition of reasonable?

There are plenty of irrational people that are sane and productive members of society.

None of us are Vulcans so we are all prone to a bit of unreasonableness and irrationality. Often it is not problematic. When it impacts policy in contravention of physical evidence is when it becomes problematic.