The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

That does not follow. Why would personal testimony of a relationship with a supernatural being (by definition beyond nature) land you on a naturalistic examination table?

I think you are the one not following... Answer: Because you are making an objective truth claim about the experience, Steve. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Personal testimony sucks. I mentioned the Mandela Effect earlier. What have you to say to that? Lots of people believe it's true that a parallel universe slipped into ours and changed "Sex in the City" to "Sex AND the City."

So...because a lot of people believe that it happened; that they experienced it personally, then it must be objectively true, right?

I am asking why a person's (or a billion people's) testimony isn't evidence of something being true? If I end up in court, my testimony is evidence of things I witnessed. If someone else testifies they witnessed the same thing, we start to work toward "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". No science involved.

Again...eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and by itself, NEVER indisputable evidence for anything. You know why? Because the human mind is fallible and incredibly vulnerable to subconscious influences, making "personal experience" a terribly unreliable source of objective truth. Not to mention, people LIE. Eye witness testimony alone is usually not enough for any type of conviction in a court of law these days. Just look at any rape case EVER. Most prosecutors feel much more confident if they've got scientific, forensic evidence to corroborate a person's testimony.

There are other ways to arrive at knowledge than just science. There are metaphysical truths, there are moral truths, there are mathematical truths. In fact science rests on many philosophical assumptions that it cannot operate without.

*bold mine*

Sure, but philosophy without science is literally just day dreaming. [emoji6]

I am saying that a person can have a properly basic belief (having good internal reasons without requiring outside proof) about a relationship with God and therefore is rational/justified in that belief.

I disagree. Such a belief without evidence is neither rational nor justified. But your personal, private requirements of evidence for your belief are not even the issue here. It's when you start trying to convince others to believe that same extraordinary thing for the same crappy reasons that you get the kick-back, man.