From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 16:58:54 +1000, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)