No reason justifies disbelief.

[bennyboy]

If philosophic speculation and rational inference are, likewise, based on empiricism...then metaphysics is an empty set, and it's uncertain why the most succesful form of empirical investigation...the scientific method... would be an inappropriate tool for investigating the empirical.

Because the scientific method as we normally mean it refers to a specific set of empirical observations-- those which are shareable and repeatable by others. I can follow my own train of thoughts. If I decide to somehow quantify or establish experimental controls, I can do a kind of science on myself. What I can't do, however, is provide access other than my own accounts to anyone else. If you are willing to regard meditative and introspective traditions (like those found in the less woo-ish branches of Tibetan Buddhist thought), then I will retract the statement that mind cannot be studied scientifically.

Even in that case, however, I do not believe that any description of psychogony can be said to be verifiably correct.

Again, minutiae, and you're just telling us that you disagree with scientific hypotheses or the ability to establish a theory, it;s not accurate to consider either subject a black box for science..they just aren't.  

Sure they are. You cannot identify with any certainty what material systems or processes allow for subjective experience. There is no such thing as mind to be found in the Universe, except in the form of anecdotal reports.

As for the Big Bang-- the only reason the Big Bang would not be said to be a black box is that a black box has inputs and outputs. It is an observer's job to infer the mechanism by which the input is transformed into the output. Obviously, this is impossible in the case of the Big Bang.