Superstition, Metaphysics, and Verificationism

I am drawn to the logical positivist mistrust of metaphysics, and this mistrust has led me to doubt the legitimacy of many abstract entities; but perhaps there is a way of separating the more pernicious abstract entities from the harmless ones. An abstract entity, like a God, becomes pernicious when the criteria for judging its presence or absence in a certain situation are not publicly accessible and intellgible. That is, when one person's appeal to an abstract entity cannot be rationally countered by someone who disagrees, the entity is a pernicious one. In this way positing an unconscious to which we can never gain conscious access, and whose effects we cannot consciously infer, is like positing a God. The action of these entities is unverifiable in the worst way: God is often defined as something we cannot understand rationally, and the unconscious as something of which we cannot be aware. God and the unconscious are by definition inaccessable. This makes them dangerous. When an entity is by definition inaccessible, those who use it to judge others wield a power that cannot be checked.

Atoms are different. The rules according to which they are inferred, the laws by which they work, are known; and if we personally do not feel certain that we completely understand them, we know who the people are who do. Atoms are not going to cause any witch trials.

So I propose verificationism for entities the existence of which is by definition unverifiable. It is important that we stand on equal ground when it comes to the reasons we can appeal to in explaining (or excusing) ourselves and others. It is important that we not be judged according to inscrutable standards, and that reasons can always be heard.