Everyday ethics, epistemology and metaphysics are all consistent with superstitious theories originating from the misuse of language, and more often, language being used the best it can even when it is not entirely accurate, which is then usually brought into belief by the repetition of propositions in society.
Transcendental arguments, such as the existence (both for and against) God as a supernatural entity are self-contradictory, because they are using language given to things in this world to describe one that is has forever been said to exist beyond our capability to reach. Empirical (sense-experience) propositions supporting or denouncing a spirit or a ghost is axiomatically false. "I have never seen a ghost, therefore they do not exist," contradicts the analytic definition of a ghost/spirit - that it is invisible (not to say invisibility is a predicate, because it isn't). Therefore, the belief that there is any evidence either way as to the argument of the existence of transcendental beings is a superstitious belief.
"Certainty," is often used outside the philosophical world to mean something that is probable. When I look at grass, or more accurately what appears to me as grass, I cannot know whether the primary qualities (size, height, weight etc) exist in reality, as much as I can be certain that secondary qualities (taste, smell, colour etc) exist as attributes to my perception. Therefore, I can be certain that I am having a sensation of green when I look outside my window, but I cannot be certain that my perception of green matches your perception of green. What if everything you've seen which is blue has been labelled green by the language you've been taught? How would you know the difference between your perception and someone else's if you share the same language?
And as for ethics, the only thing that can be verified from a moral proposition is an approval or disapproval of an instance. "Muder is wrong," articulated more accurately, should be: "Murder," is wrong. It's correct that murder isn't to the liking of the sympathetic, and it's correct that murder has occurred, but murder will only ever be or not be the case for a liking or disliking to occur.I don't believe "murder," can be right or wrong, anymore than I believe that "walking the dog," can be right or wrong.
I could be wrong about all this, but I don't think I am. I think people generally are more superstitous than they may think. Even the word, "allow." It's just a bigot's misconception of control, isn't it? Nobody can allow you to do anything. They can only ever stop, or ignore you. The laws of nature will always provide consequences, but that doesn't mean I can't choose to disobey and suffer those consequences.
And this turned out longer than I thought it would. Sorry.
