From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/09/2025 7:21 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 9/9/25 7:04 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)