From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   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:   
   >>> [...]   
   >>> 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.   
      
   You still miss the point. Religion has had over 4000 years (probably   
   more than 10,000) to provide "the who and why", and it hasn't come close   
   to doing so. It hasn't provided anything of *any* epistemological   
   significance. Ever. It has never been an alternative source of   
   knowledge. Why, and how, do you expect it to start being one now?   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)