Creation/evolution3

[Thumpalumpacus]

Simply because Drich claims to have experienced god doesn't mean that that claim is true. He may have experienced an excitation of the left parietal lobe, inducing a religious experience; or he may simply be a lying sack of shit. But it is not an empirical claim because it cannot be observed.

Those are good points, but I disagree with the above quote. Assuming Drich is right, then everybody can experience God through the A/S/K method. It is not different than a scientist who publishes experimental results that anybody can replicate.

The problem is, many of us even here have run this heuristic and found it wanting. If I have to assume Drich is right in order to experience his feelings, well, that doesn't necessarily bring me closer to reality, does it?

Or, put another way: I've already run his prescribed course of action, and I didn't find god. Now what?

The difference is that Drich's claims aren't falsifiable, because every time some ex-Christian says he/she failed to replicate Drich's experiences, Drich makes excuses for God - you didn't knock on the right door, or you didn't give God enough time to get off the couch and answer the door.

Of course. And the fact that his claims aren't falsifiable, or replicable, means that those claims aren't worth a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

I'm not going to give his little god a pass when I see him shoehorning evil into it.

---

Simply because Drich claims to have experienced god doesn't mean that that claim is true. He may have experienced an excitation of the left parietal lobe, inducing a religious experience; or he may simply be a lying sack of shit. But it is not an empirical claim because it cannot be observed.

Those are good points, but I disagree with the above quote. Assuming Drich is right, then everybody can experience God through the A/S/K method. It is not different than a scientist who publishes experimental results that anybody can replicate.

Firstly, assuming Drich is right is not a good way to find your path to the truth.

Secondly, comparing faithful worship to the scientific method is silly. Not anyone can experience god. But anyone can experience science.

The difference is that Drich's claims aren't falsifiable, because every time some ex-Christian says he/she failed to replicate Drich's experiences, Drich makes excuses for God - you didn't knock on the right door, or you didn't give God enough time to get off the couch and answer the door.

Being unfalsifiable, his claims are rendered meaningless. The fact that he has to create just-so stories in order to defend his own faith doesn't make that faith stronger.