How does one distinguish faith from delusion?

Philosophy without empiricism has been tried in the past and has so far turned out to be bullshit. In the past, philosophers at one point were considered authoritative in matters of reality. They produced some of the most bullshitted ideas about reality.Aristotelian physics, for example, did not at all reflect reality at all. One could simply disprove it by throwing an object and observe the parabolic path that it falls rather than the rectilinear motion bullshit that people believed.I guess what I'm trying to say in too many words is empiricism applies to everything if you don't want to be delusional. We have plenty of examples from the past where empiricism wasn't used and the result was almost always bullshit.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has ever claimed that reality is entirely composed of things that are directly detected by the 5 senses. Don't make things up. Are you trying to compare us indirectly detecting radioactive decay and people's supposed divine revelations?Apples and oranges, you can't compare them. With something like radioactive decay, EVERYBODY who knows how to detect it can agree with each other that it exists. They can even measure them and everyone would agree on the results.Unless someone can repeat a miracle every time like faith healing the sick on a consistent basis, equating indirect detection of natural phenomena to divine revelations is nothing more than bullshit.Sorry, I'm just offended to see science being brought down to the level of faith.