if it's true that there is such a thing as an ineffable experience, this means that the basic assumptions underlying all of science are false.
Isn't the fact that these experiences can be induced by using a physical collection of molecules to do something physical to the brain an indication that, actually, they're just the sort of physical processes that are compatible with materialistic science?
Of course it's compatible! But that doesn't rob it of its magic. Just because we discover the lever, doesn't prove there isn't something tugging on the lever.
I have a couple articles on my site about how the concept of the "supernatural" is incoherent, but that it doesn't matter: we experience such a small subset of "reality" that we need a concept "outside the normal realm of experience." I called it "Hypernatural," for lack of a better term already in use.
The issue is that if a phenomenon is indescribable through either words or math then how can we collect any independently verifiable data? It would be impossible to create any laws governing such a phenomenon, because we would never be able to see whether or not the laws fit the past data and were capable of predicting the future.
Isn't the fact that these experiences can be induced by using a physical collection of molecules to do something physical to the brain an indication that, actually, they're just the sort of physical processes that are compatible with materialistic science?