[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>> 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 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.   
      
   Nevertheless, please don't.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   You're a creationist? What sort?   
      
   >>>>> 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?   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)