From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 17:35:25 +1000, 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.   
   >   
   >>    
   >>> 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    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)