It seems to me that belief in inductive logic is something like an atheistic placebo.
What is the belief in inductive logic? Can one not believe in it? One doesn't even need to know what it is to derive generalizations inductively from experience. My dogs do it, as they learn to associate sights and sounds with what has followed them in the past and will therefore likely expect the same relationships to persist in the future. That's how they learned what the doorbell means.
And what is an atheistic placebo? Is a sham atheistic treatment?
Other have already noted that your use of language isn't descriptive enough, and none of us seem to know what you are saying or looking for here. I can't even begin to respond to that comment except in the manner I have - what does it mean? Use more words and flesh out your ideas in paragraphs that don't skimp on description, definition, or explanation as I have just done here. There is nothing about these words that isn't clear.
Let's work on your OP, since there really isn't anything more to do until we know what you are saying.
It allows the vast majority of human beings to use the divine spirit God gave them while treating the abilities circumscribed by that divine spirit as though they're produced inductively --- naturally.
Once again, what does this mean? How does one use a divine spirit? I'm an atheist. Are you saying I do that? If so, what are you saying I'm doing? Am I getting that divine spirit to help me?
And what is this other thing you say I might be doing at the same time. What would be an example of something a person like me might have done that could be described as, "treating the abilities circumscribed by that divine spirit as though they're produced inductively --- naturally." Did you mean innately or intuitively rather than inductively?
Have you never been in a position where it is important that you are understood clearly? How did you speak or write then? I'm a retired clinical physician, and it was very important that patients understood what was said to them. Imagine using language like atheistic placebo or abilities circumscribed. Fauci has this problem, probably because he hasn't treated a patient in decades. I listened to him on TV this week, and he used three technical words in one sentence that most listeners wouldn't understand.
If it can be shown that they're not, then all persons would have to rise to the level of understanding possessed by Einstein and Chomsky (Popper too), which would, if nothing else, cause severe epistemological discomfort for those who prefer to lie in the crib and watch the dangling mobile with a ga ga, and a goo goo, now and then.
Now Einstein, Chomsky, and Popper appear, seemingly gratuitously. It reminds me of the lyrics to Dylan's Desolation row, which is just as opaque:
Cinderella, she seems so easy, "It takes one to know one, " she smiles
And puts her hands in her back pockets Bette Davis style
And in comes Romeo, he's moaning. "You Belong to Me I Believe"
And someone says, "You're in the wrong place, my friend, you'd better leave
Einstein, disguised as Robin Hood with his memories in a trunk
Passed this way an hour ago with his friend, a jealous monk"
Exactly what is Dylan saying? Nothing, really. It's poetry, and you are expected to experience it like a verbal Rorschach test, where you insert some of your own imagination to give these sentences some meaning, some relevant narrative. Likewise with your comment. I have to guess why you mentioned those names and what you think they did or do that is relavent to what came before and after those names.
Most of humanity seems to be engulfed in something like a metaphysical-physicalism, which is, naturally, a tautological oxymoron.
It's poetry time again. I have no idea what you are trying to tell us. A tautology is not an oxymoron (they are actually kind of opposite, one using identity and the other apparent contradiction), and how does metaphysical realism relate to what has come before it?
My advice if you seek more clarity in your writing is to stick with smaller, less technical words in full sentences that you would expect children to understand, and build up from there using more vocabulary and more complicated sentences, checking to see that you have included everything necessary to understand you.
So what do you think about trying to rewrite the OP together? I'm sure that I can help once I know what you want to communicate. And you can compare the starting and ending product to see the difference.
