Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In many scenarios, the observer is a machine or tool, not a human mind. An unconscious, non-experiencing mechanism is not an observer in the way the term “empirical”[0] is meant—to observe is to experience. > I also don't understand why the mind is relevant. See above. (I do not think I really understood the rest of your comment.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
You can observe the state of a machine that is expected to derive it's state from an event or state of another object. For example, a video camera derives it's state from the light rays entering the lenses. I'm asking for some video evidence of religion. So really I am asking for an opportunity to observe a state of a machine, albeit a very specific state. I suppose you could argue this is just a very roundabout way…
Yes, but you still observe it, right? That’s how evidence is created.
Religion operates at a level closer to philosophy. You can interrogate theories of mind logically, but when you try to apply scientific method it breaks down—there’s no hard evidence you can obtain to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Similar is true of the claims made by a religion, though its obvious weak point is it’s more axiomatic and less logically rigorous (which is why I am not a proponent).