Creation/evolution3

[watchamadoodle]

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 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.

---

Consider two cases:
(1) I go to the Amazon and report sighting a strange bird species which is eventually confirmed
(2) I go to the Amazon and report seeing a flying saucer which is never confirmed
(3) I am a scientist who publishes my breakthrough in cold fusion that turns out to be my mistake

Those are all sensory observations for me, and they are second-hand sensory observations for other people. If I read about an experiment confirming general relativity, that is not first-hand observation for me. It is no different from hearing Drich's claims.

The difference IMO is that general relativity has been tested and confirmed by many careful scientists. They are both equally empirical.

I've had psychosis, so I can sympathize with Drich's reasoning. People with psychosis are being completely rational and scientific, but their senses are giving them weird information. (Of course I'm not suggesting that Drich is mentally ill, but maybe some of his experiences years ago were hallucinatory. Sane people can also hallucinate. That is my theory.)

Which is why empirical evidence can not be subjective. By using just the definition of empirical to describe empirical evidence is where you are having the confusion. Just because you collect data empirically about a phenomenon does not make your data, evidence of your conclusions. i.e., I saw god, is not "evidence" for god.

I think we are all using slightly different definitions, but what you say is sensible.