You sound manifestly impressed by this reasoning. There is no such thing as pure empiricism. It has its virtues, but when it is the sole methodology, out goes a lot more than just holy books. You’d be done with literature, too. And history. And politics.
It is not necessarily that I am *impressed* with it, but I am trying to make sure I both point out the potential flaws AND portray it accurately and fairly.
As far as I can tell, my efforts got a mixed reception.
Cheers!