From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/09/2025 7:02 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 9/7/25 6:58 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 7/09/2025 11:25 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>> On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that   
   >>>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science   
   >>>>>> providing evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge -   
   >>>>>> evidence from science giving reason to consider explanations   
   >>>>>> beyond the reach of science.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start   
   >>>>> with one simple question: what has religion produced in the last   
   >>>>> 2000 years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a   
   >>>>> few books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables,   
   >>>>> like those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian   
   >>>>> Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these   
   >>>>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion   
   >>>>> settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because   
   >>>>> science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians   
   >>>>> back from working on this.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly   
   >>>> conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already   
   >>>> progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of   
   >>>> even a protocell*.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to   
   >>>> define and delineate epidemiological categories and their   
   >>>> application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,   
   >>>> statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a   
   >>>> bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I believe you can do better.   
   >>>   
   >>> I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point   
   >>> entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the   
   >>> origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a   
   >>> "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you   
   >>> could point to. What is it?   
   >>   
   >> The epistemological categories are intrinsically different, such that   
   >> demanding the category of religion (say) provide anything resembling a   
   >> scientific explanation of OOL is to commit a category error.   
   >>   
   >> Science provides 'how' knowledge within its domain. Religion is not   
   >> expected to provide the how of life, rather the who and why.   
   >   
   > How does religion supply the who and why? How do we determine whether   
   > the claim can be believed?   
      
   See my end comment.   
      
   >   
   > And I will note that this is the first time you've separated "what" from   
   > "who" and "why". The research you've been trying to find an alternative   
   > to is all about "what", but now you disclaim that entire field of   
   > inquiry, by whatever method.   
      
   I'm simply making explicit what I think is generally understood. No-one   
   is demanding the Bible (or any other religious text) provide a journal   
   article detailing how God created life, nor is anyone expecting science   
   to answer metaphysical 'why' questions of meaning and purpose.   
      
   >   
   >> To be clear, I'm not anti-science. Moreover, the world religions   
   >> contain mutually exclusive claims, which makes 'religion' as an   
   >> alternative source of knowledge problematic.   
   >>   
   >> I'm willing to have a discussion in good faith, including highlighting   
   >> the challenges and limitations of my own position.   
   >>   
   >> Are you?   
   >   
   > Sure. Again I ask, if there are other "ways of knowing", what are they,   
   > and how do we assess whether their results are true?   
      
   As previously touched on, religion's "ways of knowing" (primarily   
   revelation/faith and existentialism/phenomenology) are generally not   
   comparable with those of science (primarily empiricism and rationalism).   
      
   That's not to say that rationalism, for example, is excluded in relation   
   to knowledge via religion. For example, with Christianity,   
   circumstantial evidence for the resurrection includes the transformation   
   of the disciples from fearful individuals to bold martyrs, the empty   
   tomb, the rapid growth and spread of Christianity, and the unchanged   
   character and unwavering commitment of the earliest followers, even when   
   facing suffering and death. Circumstantial evidence can used to make   
   rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in a court of law.   
      
   All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive   
   truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm not   
   claiming otherwise.   
      
   I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though I   
   do take science seriously.   
      
   All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 years"   
   scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider   
   supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may   
   still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural, even   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)