Creation/evolution3

[watchamadoodle]

@Chas, I don't think we are disagreeing on any of those issues where you are correcting and clarifying. I'm sure part of the fault is my poor writing, but I wonder if you are making assumptions about my views that aren't fair.

I do disagree with your post quoted below (that empirical doesn't allow "stuff that happened only in my head"). We don't know if anything is real outside our heads. If I'm a scientist taking a measurement, I can't know that I'm really taking a measurement.

In the example of auras, if we had several people that claim to see auras, we could form a hypothesis and do experiments. For example, I might show the same set of 100 people in randomized order to each psychic who claims to see auras, and I can find out if their aura measurements are consistent. If one psychic sees an aura for Joe while the other psychic does not see an aura for Joe, then I would disprove certain hypotheses about auras.

IMO, Drich's beliefs are empirical, because they are based on his own experiences and not based solely on logic. The problem with Drich's claims is that many ex-Christians and current Christians have failed to replicate his results using his A/S/K method. Drich says they gave up too soon or knocked on the wrong doors, but I say Drich should consider other explanations for his experiences. (Of course if he's happy believing what he believes then that's great. Good for him. )

Here is the dictionary definition of empirical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

That definition does not allow "stuff that happened only in my head" which is what Drich wants it to say and you seem to want to let in.

For example, if you say you see auras around people, that is not empirical evidence of auras.