From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/09/2025 10:54 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 9/8/25 4:03 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)