[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
      
   No, AI output is not automatically "slop". In this case, it provided a   
   rather satisfactory and relevant summary in the little time I had   
   available.   
      
   >   
   >> 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?   
      
   I set boundaries for reasons other than avoidance.   
      
   TO is a pretty joyless place for a creationist tbh, in fact for most   
   participants for much of the the time it appears. But I keep coming back   
   because it does offer capable and informed critique of ideas and claims.   
   In view of that, thanks for your engagement.   
      
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)