Hi PaulK, thanks.
I think that my comments may provide some insight. Let us note that RAZD does not explicitly state what is being non-empiricably detected. ...
Actually, when you have any two word combination like "empirically detectable" it means there are three other possibilities to consider:
| Empirically
| Not Empirically
|
| Detectable | Empirically
Detectable
| Not Empirically
Detectable
|
Not Detectable
| Empirically
Not Detectable
| Not Empirically
Not Detectable
|
Here we are not interested in what is not detectable, so that leaves us with two possibilities or two words mean the same thing.
Either we have a repetitiously redundant wording or there are two distinct different possibilities: empirically detectable and non-empirically detectable.
And if one cannot exist then the phrase is a repetitious redundant phrase.
This should be basic english comprehension.
... I will take the charitable view that he is asserting that religious experiences might be detections of supernatural beings, which he believes do not qualify as empirical. There is nothing else which seems to qualify.
Where empirically is taken to mean testable and repeatable, rather than just a single point of data (ie the unique experience of a conscious and aware individual that has not been repeated or validated in any way).
Here you have a potential situation where an individual could experience a supernatural presence, but the outside observer is not able to verify or test for the supernatural presence, even though they can test for whether or not the experience affects their brain patterns and identify the pattern common to religious experiences. You can detect and identify associated patterns but not the core experience.
If you can't test for electricity, you can detect and identify the lightening and the thunder, but you are unable to test for and detect the presence of electricity.
The difference for the individual though, is that they (if the experience is truly one of a religious presence) can detect such presence.
quote:
If you met a supernatural being, would that not de facto be classed as a religious experience?
On the face of it, no. An encounter with, say, a ghost or a werewolf need not even have any religious content, let alone invoke the strong emotional response associated with the more technical meaning that I think is intended.
But would you or would you not then be a believer in ghosts or werewolves? You have had an experience that involves them. Would this not lead you to question other beliefs related to supernatural beings?
quote:
Are there documents of religious experiences where people claim to have met supernatural beings?
Certainly there are, but whether they reflect actual encounters is another matter entirely.
Isn't that the question? Are they real experiences of a supernatural presence or not?
quote:
Can you detect when religious experiences occur (ie changes in brain activity)?
Certainly this is true.
So the occurrence of the experience is detectable.
quote:
Can you empirically test religious experiences to see if they actually are experiences of supernatural beings etc?
In practice it appears to not be the case - ...
In other words, detectable but not empirically testable. Thanks.
... although it certainly would not necessarily be the case if such experiences were genuine contacts with supernatural beings.
Why so? Isn't this just an assumption on your part? Do you have a means to test for supernatural presence?
Moreover, the fact that religious experiences may be artifically induced tends to suggest that they are more likely not contacts with supernatural being.
Again we go back to your TV analogy: you can see an image when the TV is on and you cannot see it when the TV is off. Inducing it may only be turning on the mechanism. You would need a means to test for supernatural presence before you can say it is not present.
As is the fact that the interpretations often owe far more to the subject's pre-existing beliefs than the experience itself.
Which only relates to the ability of the person to understand what they are experiencing, and how they naturally fit it into their worldview. That it would conform in a general way to similar previous experiences should not be a major surprise.
The raw experiences seem to be - provided we let go of the idea that any possible encounter with a supernatural entity would qualify - however as stated above the interpretations are far less so.
ie - raw experiences are broadly consistent. The overall pattern is consistent.
Personal interpretations are not.
But let us note that the experience itself qualifies as an observation (and therefore is empirical) - indeed it is sometimes claimed that they represent the operation of a sense. Arguments based on comparing such experiences - even if it were not the case that the experiences could be induced in the laboratory - would clearly be inductive arguments based on repeated observation - clearly empirical. ...
So are you arguing that detectable and empirical mean the same thing?
Curiously, what you are testing is whether or not the
experience occurs, and then evaluating whether or not the
experience matches information from other experiences, not whether or not a supernatural presence is involved.
Thus, it is hard to see how such experiences can be classified as non-empirical detections. If they are detections, they are observations and therefore empirical. We are still left with the difficult question of how a detection can fail to involve an observation of some sort, a question which RAZD's post clearly fails to address.
It would appear you
are arguing that detectable and empirical mean the same thing.
So a person can have an experience that may or may not be of a supernatural presence, they believe that they experience a supernatural presence, they can describe the a supernatural presence, and you have a means where they can empirically test\determine if it really was a supernatural presence?
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
