[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> 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 supernatural explanations, even with the challenges   
   >>>>> mentioned. You may still declare your own unwillingness to consider   
   >>>>> the supernatural, even with the the most compelling "1000 years"   
   >>>>> scenario imaginable, and may justify that by claiming that such   
   >>>>> explanations are not knowable. I would respond that, at some point,   
   >>>>> a refusal to at least explore would betray an a priori commitment   
   >>>>> to materialism in the face of scientific evidence. And you may   
   >>>>> disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations.   
   >>>> This is the heart of your problem.   
   >>   
   >> Did you write this yourself or copy it (uncredited) from elsewhere?   
   >   
   > ChatGPT, hence the opening and closing quotes, but easy to miss (and   
   > normally I note use of AI). However, it is a quick indicative framework   
   > that I generally agree with.   
      
   Please don't do either of those things: don't post AI slop without   
   noting it, and don't post AI slop.   
      
   > I get your questions and concerns. It is very different approach to what   
   > science offers. Given the choice, I'll take empirical, objective   
   > verification as well. But that's just not how it works. And not to avoid   
   > the issues raised, but each point requires more time than I have   
   > available at the moment (it's midnight and I've got more work to do).   
      
   Sure. Don't strain yourself. But that's not how what works? And how is   
   that not avoiding the issues raised?   
      
   >>> Something like this:   
   >>>   
   >>> "Assessing the truth claims of world religions—especially since many   
   >>> make mutually exclusive claims—requires a careful, multi-layered   
   >>> approach. Here are several angles you could use, depending on whether   
   >>> you prioritize philosophy, history, or lived experience:   
   >>   
   >> What if you prioritize empirical, objective verification?   
   >>   
   >>> 1. Philosophical Coherence   
   >>>   
   >>> Internal consistency: Does the religion’s worldview avoid   
   >>> contradictions within its own teachings? For example, does its   
   >>> concept of God, morality, or human purpose hold together logically?   
   >>   
   >> That would be a plus, but a very low bar, and all religions I am   
   >> familiar with nevertheless fail at it.   
   >>   
   >>> External explanatory power: Does the worldview make sense of the   
   >>> world we observe—things like the existence of consciousness,   
   >>> morality, order in nature, and human longing for meaning?   
   >>   
   >> How would such a world view "make sense" of these things? Again, I   
   >> know of no actual instance.   
   >>   
   >>> 2. Historical Credibility   
   >>>   
   >>> Origins and development: Are the religion’s founding events   
   >>> historically verifiable or plausible? For example, the historical   
   >>> resurrection claim in Christianity, the compilation of the Qur’an in   
   >>> Islam, or the verifiable life of Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism.   
   >>   
   >> None of these is historically verifiable as far as I know. How would   
   >> they lend credibility to other religious claims, particularly about   
   >> the origin of life?   
   >>   
   >>> Transmission reliability: How well preserved are the original texts   
   >>> and traditions? Do we have strong textual evidence or is it mostly   
   >>> late, fragmented, or contradictory?   
   >>   
   >> How is this relevant to the credibility of religious claims?   
   >>   
   >>> Miracle claims: These are often central to veracity. Assess whether   
   >>> they have corroborating witnesses, early testimony, or whether they   
   >>> look more like legendary accretions.   
   >>   
   >> Don't they all look like legendary accretions?   
   >>   
   >>> 3. Moral and Existential Fruitfulness   
   >>>   
   >>> Practical impact: Does following the religion produce consistent   
   >>> moral transformation in adherents? Not just in isolated saints, but   
   >>> across broad communities.   
   >>   
   >>  From what I can see, it doesn't for any religion. Nor can I see how   
   >> this, if true, would add credibility to the claims of that religion.   
   >>   
   >>> Human needs: Does the religion adequately address deep existential   
   >>> questions—such as the problem of suffering, the need for forgiveness,   
   >>> or the quest for ultimate meaning?   
   >>   
   >> No religion I know of adequately addresses any of these, other than   
   >> presenting facile answers that satisfy some people who want them to be   
   >> true.   
   >>   
   >>> 4. Comparative Exclusivity   
   >>>   
   >>> Since religions make mutually exclusive claims (e.g., monotheism vs.   
   >>> polytheism, reincarnation vs. resurrection, salvation by grace vs. by   
   >>> works):   
   >>>   
   >>> One strategy is critical elimination: examine contradictory claims   
   >>> and see which stand up better to scrutiny.   
   >>   
   >> How would you do this? Perhaps you could present an example of a   
   >> comparison of mutually exclusive claims that leads you to reject one   
   >> of them.   
   >>   
   >>> Another is to explore whether partial truth is possible (religions   
   >>> may contain overlapping moral or metaphysical truths even if not all   
   >>> are wholly correct).   
   >>   
   >> Why should overlap be a criterion for truth?   
   >>   
   >>> Some adopt a pluralist stance (all religions are different paths to   
   >>> the same reality), but this itself is a truth claim that often   
   >>> contradicts what religions themselves say.   
   >>>   
   >>> 5. Personal and Experiential Dimensions   
   >>>   
   >>> While harder to evaluate objectively, many believers appeal to lived   
   >>> religious experience (answered prayer, transformative encounters,   
   >>> mystical insight).   
   >>>   
   >>> One can test these experiences against external reality: are they   
   >>> consistent, verifiable, and not easily reducible to psychological or   
   >>> cultural explanation?   
   >>   
   >> Sometimes one can, to a certain extent. But have any such claims   
   >> survived a rigorous test?   
   >>   
   >>> 6. Methodological Guardrails   
   >>>   
   >>> Beware confirmation bias: People often judge religions by the one   
   >>> they were raised in or by isolated negative experiences with others.   
   >>   
   >> Out of curiosity, were you raised as a Christian?   
   >>   
   >>> Use historical method: Treat religious claims with the same standards   
   >>> you’d use for other ancient historical claims (documents,   
   >>> archaeology, multiple attestation).   
   >>   
   >> That makes a little sense. But Even the existence of Jesus is not all   
   >> that well attested, much less any details of his life or ministry.   
   >> Certainly nothing of his resurrection.   
   >>   
   >>> Balance head and heart: Purely intellectual tests might miss the   
   >>> lived power of faith, while purely experiential tests might ignore   
   >>> contradictions."   
   >>   
   >> Is the "lived power of faith" a "way of knowing"? Is it to be relied on?   
   >>   
   >>>>> Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to   
   >>>>> discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.   
   >>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)