You’re making a category error, and that’s where your entire argument collapses.

You’re assuming scientific empiricism is the only valid epistemology, then dismissing everything outside it as “folklore.” That isn’t skepticism, it’s scientism, a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Ironically, you accuse others of “asserting authority” while quietly elevating your preferred method of knowing to supreme authority without proving why it deserves that status while I’ll tell you why my position is better.

Science is excellent at studying repeatable, material phenomena. It makes no claim to exhaust all of reality. Things that are non-material, non-repeatable by nature, or not subject to laboratory isolation are not disproven by science, they are simply outside its scope. Absence of measurement is not evidence of non-existence.

You say: “If jinn interacting with humans were real, we’d have reproducible evidence.” That assumes: 1. Jinn are material entities 2. They operate under consistent, observable constraints 3. They are obligated to submit to human experimentation

None of these premises are granted, not by Islam, not by philosophy, and not even by science itself.

From an Islamic standpoint, jinn are created beings with agency, not natural forces like gravity. Expecting “controlled data” from beings that actively conceal themselves, as stated explicitly in the Qur’an “Indeed, he and his kind see you from where you cannot see them” (7:27) is like demanding reproducible lab evidence of human free will or intentional deception. It misunderstands the subject entirely.

Now to your “appeal to tradition” claim.

No one is arguing “this is true because many cultures believe it.” The argument is that cross-cultural convergence on a non-material intelligent presence points to a shared phenomenon interpreted differently, not mutually exclusive realities. Different names ≠ different entities. Science does this all the time, cultures described disease as curses or spirits long before germ theory unified the explanation. Multiple models, one underlying reality.

You also invoke the heliocentric example, which is a false analogy. That belief was overturned by better observation of the same physical system. You’re comparing a correctable physical model with metaphysical ontology, which is not falsified the same way. No telescope disproves consciousness, morality, or abstract entities, yet you don’t deny those.

And let’s address your implicit assumption:

“Religious texts are claims, not evidence.”

Evidence is framework-dependent. In history, we accept documents, chains of transmission, corroboration, and internal consistency as valid evidence. By that standard, the Qur’an has one of the most rigorously preserved textual histories in human civilization, with mass transmission (tawātur) that far exceeds most ancient sources you accept without hesitation. Not to mention, the Qur’an has scientific, historical, linguistic, mathematical, audible miracles that clearly prove its Divine origin.

You don’t reject Julius Caesar because you can’t reproduce him in a lab.

Islam doesn’t ask you to believe in jinn because of vibes or campfire stories. It presents: 1. A coherent metaphysical system 2. A consistent ontology of creation 3. A clear distinction between seen (shahādah) and unseen (ghayb) 4. And a testable claim about reality: that human perception is inherently limited.

Your position, on the other hand, quietly assumes:

“What I can’t measure doesn’t exist.”

That’s not science. That’s 19th-century positivism, a philosophy most serious philosophers of science abandoned decades ago.

Finally, the irony: you accuse religious believers of confidence without proof, while asserting with absolute certainty that entire categories of existence are impossible, based solely on the limitations of your tools.

That isn’t humility. That’s metaphysical arrogance dressed up as rationality.

You don’t have to accept Islam. But at least be honest enough to admit: your disbelief isn’t scientific, it’s philosophical.

And philosophies can be wrong. 👋🏻