All you need to do is look at any of the research that developmentalists have done in a multitude of different developmental areas, such as moral development, cognitive development, ego development, etc., with names like Piaget, Loveginer, Gilligan, etc. You can also include stages of faith development which you can see from the well-regarded research of James Fowler, for instance, whose book on Stages of Faith, I have read several times.
There are marked, identifiable, repeatable patterns of development that people go through different stages from less sophisticated to more sophisticated. You cannot skip stages, and you must go through each stage to the next. Each stage is "higher" than the previous stage, in that it builds upon, yet transcends what came before it. But not everyone develops to the higher stages.
And why this is considered "deeper" is simple. Think of a pyramid. The depth at the first layer of blocks is relatively shallow, while its span is greater. But at the top, the depth includes all the layers below it, but it's span is relatively small by comparison to the lower layers. So it has greater depth, but less span, or "fewer" at the top. That is what I mean.
Is this falsifiable? Yes, show a pattern that does not fit these stages. So far, no one is able to do that. These are all based up scientific research. No, this is not just "me saying so". This is based up objective research.
By depth, I mean exactly what that word indicate. More knowledge, more understanding, greater depth, versus surface understandings. They are a measure of awareness, knowledge, understanding, comprehension, and moreover skill sets. I practice Taijiquan for instance. At 3 plus years of daily practice, I have a fair amount more depth of understanding of it than I did in my first few months. But there are those who have a depth of understanding that by far surpasses my own, and depth I will never attain since I've started so much later in life. Depth is a matter of experience and grown. Depth is developmental in nature. It's a measure of experience and understanding.
He makes perfectly consistent claims based upon his depth of understanding of science. But his understanding of science is extremely shallow, and therefore, he make gross errors compared to someone whose depth of understanding science is far greater than his.
You should care about it. People who have great depths of understanding are experts. Be that in science, or an understanding of human nature and the nature of our spiritual beings. Empirical science is not the full measure of human experience. Not by any stretch of the imagination. To make science a religion that way, is really no different that saying if it's not in the Bible, you shouldn't believe it. Both views show a marked lack of understanding the depths of reality.
