From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/09/2025 5:45 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 9/8/25 12:35 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Excellent. Then why are you here claiming that religion can help us find   
   > the origin of life and the course of evolution?   
   >   
   >>>> 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).   
   >   
   > And when you say "not comparable" you mean that we have only personal   
   > preference to use in determining whether to believe their claims.   
   >   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)