Philosophy done by someone who really shouldn't

One class consists of invented questions that are often based on unwarranted extrapolations of human experience. They typically include questions of purpose and worries about the annihilation of the self, such as Why are we here? and What are the attributes of the soul? They are not real questions, because they are not based on evidence. Thus, as there is no evidence for the Universe having a purpose, there is no point in trying to establish its purpose or to explore the consequences of that purported purpose. As there is no evidence for the existence of a soul (except in a metaphorical sense), there is no point in spending time wondering what the properties of that soul might be should the concept ever be substantiated. Most questions of this class are a waste of time; and because they are not open to rational discourse, at worst they are resolved only by resort to the sword, the bomb or the flame.

Oh good grief. You, sir, are a baboon. How in the world did you become a professor ? If you're going to take it for granted that the scientific method is the be-all and end-all of discourse, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. You could start, for instance, by considering what you determine to be "evidence" in the first place - and why. You could move on to justifying why you think some things are logical and why others aren't. You could at the very least try and think of some examples of things science would not be able to explain, rather than saying that they're wrong by definition. As it is, this is just another way of saying "I already know what the answer is." Well dammit, you don't. Here, have a read of section 1 :
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-assumption.html

I don't like scientism. Daft idea, little more than intellectual chest-thumping.

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-its-only-science-that-can-answer-all-the-big-questions