From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/09/2025 2:19 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)