The truth is that empiricists are in ignorance.

[grover]

Which experiences and observations are religions based upon? Please cite the ones that have some basis in reality.

I'm specifically talking about what are referred to as mystical experiences in the West or enlightenment in the East. There is no difference btween these experiences, they are exactly the same across cultures.

Religious adherents say their beliefs are based on observation and experience, but the reality is that they base them on doctrine, mythology, and irrational beliefs.

No, if they are basing it upon those things they are basing it on faith.

Saying that god has been "experienced" and successfully demonstrating that the perceived experience was a god are two very different phenomena.

Let me ask you something? Is the important thing about science that the individual can demonstrate to others that something is true, or is the important thing that an individual can demonstrate for themself that something is true? I would say it is the latter. Something that seems to be getting missed here is that in both forms of knowledge it is actually the individual that is the authority. Also, in both science and mysticism all knowledge is actually based upon subjective knowing states that cannot be expounded upon. Which is to say that if an individual looks through a microscope or telescope they know based upon first-hand direct experience. Just as when an individual has a mathematical truth demonstrated it is the individual that knows the truth. The individual is the authority. What is important in science is that the individual can demonstrate for themslef whether or not claims are true. It is excaty the same with mysticism/buddhism.

 

[Nasor]

The individual is the authority. What is important in science is that the individual can demonstrate for themslef whether or not
claims are true. It is excaty the same with mysticism/buddhism.

The difference, of course, is that the guy standing next to you in your lab will probably see exactly the same thing when he looks through your microscope. Then you can discuss what you both saw, and it will probably be apparent that you saw the same thing. But different people have very different subjective internal experiences, even when they are in the same situations.

 

[grover]

The difference, of course, is that the guy standing next to you in your lab will probably see exactly the same thing when he looks through your microscope. Then you can discuss what you both saw, and it will probably be apparent that you saw the same thing.

And if I can demonstrate to you that mystical experiences are exactly the same across cultures what will your response be? Because the simple fact of the matter is that when people engage in intensive introspective discplines of observing the mind they do report the exact same thing.

But different people have very different subjective internal experiences, even when they are in the same situations.

Then we both agree that if the same thing is being reported that indicates some kind of objective phenomenon?

 

[Nasor]

And if I can demonstrate to you that mystical experiences are exactly the same across cultures what will your response be? Because the simple fact of the matter is that when people engage in intensive introspective discplines of observing the mind they do report the exact same thing.


Then we both agree that if the same thing is being reported that indicates some kind of objective phenomenon?

Well, it's difficult for me to answer because I don't know exactly what you're talking about when you say "mystical experience." I am perfectly willing to believe that people could have similar internal experiences/sensations when they engage in similar behavior, since all of our brains are presumably wired the same way. So yes, I agree that if the same things are constantly reported it indicates that some sort of objective phenomenon is going on.

However, I doubt very much that you could produce any sort of evidence that such an objective phenomenon is in any way supernatural, rather than simply a product of brain chemistry.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is utterly hilarious.

You appear to be the one who does not know what "empirical evidence" is. Empirical evidence is evidence based on real-world observation or measurement (rather than pure logic or philosophy). If I make the observation that people can re-grow lost limbs when they pray to a particular god, that is empirical evidence that their god exists.

actually if you read the OP you will see that empiricism is based on the notion

1) the cauese (noumena) is objective
2) the senses (phenomena) can indicate the cause

in other words if you think the empiricism is so "perfect" that it somehow over rides the needs of philosophy, think again. Empiricism has an identical crisis of belief on its hands that persons such as yourself frequently accuse theism of possessing.

Dealing with the philosophical issues of the phenomenal revealing the noumenal is what has lead Karl Popper to make statements like this

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

 

[lightgigantic]

Which experiences and observations are religions based upon?

noumenal

Please cite the ones that have some basis in reality.

so I guess that excludes explaining them on the basis of empiricism

Karl Popper

at no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

Religious adherents say their beliefs are based on observation and experience,

religious adherents also lay claim to a platform of perception that is beyond the senses (ie transcendental)

but the reality is that they base them on doctrine, mythology, and irrational beliefs.

... more empirical critical reflexivity I'm afraid (ie you are shooting yourself in the foot - the words "empirical" and "reality" are not synonymous)

Saying that god has been "experienced" and successfully demonstrating that the perceived experience was a god are two very different phenomena.

if you think god is a "phenomena" you are obviously working out of an incorrect theoretical foundation and all attempts at validation will lead you nowhere except further up the garden path

 

[Nasor]

actually if you read the OP you will see that empiricism is based on the notion

1) the cauese (noumena) is objective
2) the senses (phenomena) can indicate the cause

Really? Gee, and for all these years I've been trusting my dictionary's definion:
em·pir·i·cal /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/
Pronunciation[em-pir-i-kuhl]
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment
2. depending upon experience or observation alone
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment

in other words if you think the empiricism is so "perfect" that it somehow over rides the needs of philosophy, think again. Empiricism has an identical crisis of belief on its hands that persons such as yourself frequently accuse theism of possessing.

Generally people accuse theism of coming to conclusions that cannot be supported - or are strongly contradicted - by observation in the real world. I am not sure how empiricism could be vulnerable to such a "crisis."

 

[lightgigantic]

Really? Gee, and for all these years I've been trusting my dictionary's definion:
em·pir·i·cal /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/
Pronunciation[em-pir-i-kuhl]
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment
2. depending upon experience or observation alone
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment

hence phenomena

(do you know what the word phenomena means?)

In general, apart from its original use as a term in philosophy, phenomenon stands for any observed event. Some observable events are commonplace, while others require delicate manipulation of expensive and sensitive equipment. Phenomena make up the raw data of science, and are often exploited by technology.

Generally people accuse theism of coming to conclusions that cannot be supported - or are strongly contradicted - by observation in the real world. I am not sure how empiricism could be vulnerable to such a "crisis."

the crisis is this

How can something that is essentially phenomenal indicate something that is noumenal?

this is why Karl Popper makes statements like

at no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false.

(you say there are contradictions in theism - even if that is a sound statement, so does empiricism)

Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case.

(general example of the above)

So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

in other words at the core of empircism is belief

in other words you believe that the word "blue" (noumena) corresponds factually to what your sense of sight picks up in the way of reflected light (phenomena)

in other words the heart of empiricism's claim to reality, that the senses can reveal the cause, is not absolute but relative.

and as such, to rely on empiricism to make judgment on the claims of others (like atheists frequently do, calling theists "deluded" and so on) is an example of critical reflexivity (shooting oneself in the foot)

this is all thoroughly explained in the OP - I suggest you read it