The Need to Evolve

[Sheldon]

Belacqua wrote: 

As I recall, you were asking for a definition of the word "spiritual." The Cambridge Dictionary gives this:

Well obviously I can consult a dictionary myself, but since the other poster made an assertion, I wanted them to explain what they meant, and how they knew it existed. If we are going to claim abstract ideas "exist" then Superman and Spiderman et all exist, this doesn't seem helpful in advancing our understanding of reality. 

Your new analogy makes the same false equivalence your first did, since my criteria is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated, and I explained previously objectivity and subjectivity are on a scale, they are not a binary condition, one or the other, thus evidence can be said to be sufficiently objective quite apart from whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant credulity.

Since all claims carry a burden of proof, but they do not all carry an equal burden of proof. Someone claiming to be happy whilst subjective, is pretty trivial, but it can be objectively tested, for example if they profess happiness, and end up on a bridge threatening to jump off, is it likely they were telling the truth? Just as with the subjective experience of pain, there are objective markers to test the claim. So if a pharmaceutical company markets a drug that fights depression, we can objectively measure how well depressed people do on the drug, again simple double blind clinical trials where the test group involves a placebo spring to mind.

The issue I'm working on here is whether the lack of objective evidence for spiritual experiences is a good reason for us to conclude that such experiences are unreal. Over time a huge number of people have self-reported such experiences.

Another false equivalence, since we know physiological changes can be cause by drugs, and objectively testing them is easy, I have explained how> Paradoxically I know of no way to objectively verify that religious beliefs making the adherent happy, objectively evidences that belief? Given they've had limitless resources and millenia to do so, I can only remain dubious. 

we would need to be very serious about what these indicators are before we dismiss the existence of the subjective experiences.

I have not, nor do I need to dismiss anything, in order to withhold belief from a claim, the burden of proof is always with the claim, and disbelieving a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim, hence my original questions, and your analogous comparisons that appear to be a false equivalence. Since your analogies ignore the fact that whilst all claims carry a burden of proof, they do not carry an equal burden of proof, and that claims involving phenomena we already objectively know are possible, must be deemed to carry a lesser burden of proof than those we have no objective evidence are possible. 

It's difference between someone making an unevidenced claim that they own a pencil, and someone making an unevidenced claim they own a unicorn, both claims are prima facie entirely subjective, but they do not carry an equal burden of proof. 

So my question remains unanswered, what objective evidence if any, can that person demonstrate that anything "spiritual" exists. Happiness doesn't exist outside of the human mind, it describes an emotional (brain) state, if one is claiming their religion can be reduced to an emotional state, then fine, I'd not have a problem with that, but this does not evidence that the belief they claim produced the state is in any way true. People can be happy reading Superman comics, this does not make Superman real.

FYI we know emotions relate to brain states, and these can be indicated on an MRI scan. 

Happiness in an MRI