(July 2, 2018 at 8:40 pm)SteveII Wrote:(July 2, 2018 at 5:04 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Science has not come close to proving those experiences are supernatural, involve contact with disembodied minds, or are actually divine. Not a little, not at all. This is asking for disproof of something not in evidence in the first place.
I wasn't asking anything at all. I was pointing out Mathilda's mis-step as she relies on her underlying scientism/logical positivism philosophy sprinkled with a healthy dose of circular reasoning.
No. You were deflecting from the original point that people's religious experiences mirror the culture that they are immersed in and that rather than rely on a single brain that interprets reality, it's better to rely on hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way.
(June 30, 2018 at 7:20 am)SteveII Wrote:(June 29, 2018 at 5:56 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Then there are the brains which are not working properly. These are more suspectible to religious experience.
If all you know is religion then you will see the world through the eyes of the religious. But it's not as effective as relying on the minds and written and reproducible impartial observations of hundreds of thousands of scientists who are each looking out for the flaws in their own hypotheses and those of others.
For any of this to be valid, you would have to show that science has disproved/called into question religious experiences. It has not come even close, not a little, at all. You are repeating a theory that you backed into: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. This is question begging.