# Progress after the Royal Society conference?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [December 22, 2025, 5:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569 "2025-12-22T17:32:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 8, 2026, 8:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/142 "2026-01-08T20:55:57Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And matching reality what just what Darwin was concerned about, how can we conclude that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all?

We do not have to. Reality imposes itself on us.

You cannot be entirely rid of assumptions. Here is one. _You are a brain in a stimulus pod._ Prove me wrong.

I assume that both our perceptions and thoughts are connected to reality, and further, that you, I, and Darwin for that matter, reason based on nothing more.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 8, 2026, 10:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/143 "2026-01-08T22:09:58Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> how can we conclude that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all?

Because we should expect that to be more likely to promote survival than mismatches/no relation to reality would.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 9, 2026, 5:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/144 "2026-01-09T17:49:07Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I’m willing to forego reward for a time when pain and suffering cease.

Ah, so the pain and suffering you get in this life is enough for its good effect to last for eternity? But there’s a huge variation in the amount of pain and suffering in various people’s lives. Do some people just need more than others?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And what I said before is if there is nothing to overcome, what would there be to reward?

Heaven isn’t a reward for overcoming anything; it’s supposedly a reward for believing in Jesus. You need to get your story straight.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But I mentioned two reasons for suffering, reward, and refinement!

Problems with the latter too. People differ greatly in the amount of pain they suffer. Do they have different needs for refinement, or do some people just not get the needed refinement, unfortunately. Does no refinement happen in heaven? If so, why not? Perhaps everyone has by chance become maximally refined just as they die? Anyway, those are both ad hoc explanations purely to justify the idea that God inflicts suffering because it’s good for us. So why pray for him to end it?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> God is not present even in Paradise, for the Muslims.

Are you trying to convince me that Christianity is better than Islam? Why would you do such a thing?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Because in my experience, and in scripture, God is not into afflicting us so we will appreciate when the pain stops.

This is a reply to the wrong point, even though you have preserved the point just above. How do you know your view of God is undistorted? How do you know that being bad at reasoning isn’t good for you?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Here is the quote: “The description we have to give of thought as an evolutionary phenomenon always makes a tacit exception in favour of the thinking which we ourselves perform at that moment.” (Miracles)

Wrong quote. And the quote you give here simply assumes that if thought were an evolutionary phenomenon we would have no reason to believe in our thinking. Assuming what you intend to prove? There’s a name for that. There is no such tacit exception.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Because it’s not a valid reason to reject a statement out of hand.

First problem: not accepting that a statement is evidence for a claim being true is quite different from rejecting the truth of that statement. Your constant, presumably unconscious equivocation invalidates any argument you may be trying to make.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Do you reject the testimony that Julius Caesar was a real person, because somebody said that?

No. I just don’t accept that it’s true just because somebody said it. See how that works? And in fact we have books written by Caesar, coins minted at his orders, and even better documentation of his immediate successor. You also confuse matters of fact with opinions. Testimony about Caesar’s existence are of the former sort, while doubts about natural origin and operation of the mind are of the latter sort.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I also mentioned delirium

Not significantly different, and I’ve answered that many times, as have others. You just ignore it and repeat your previous claims. Briefly, again: we don’t reject what a person says because they’re irrational; we consider them irrational because of what they say.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I said why “just somebody said it” is no reason for dismissing them.

In fact you didn’t say why. You just said it wasn’t a reason.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> So we need to give them consideration, and evaluate why they said what they said.

No, we need to evaluate the evidence for the truth of what they said. Their motivations are at best secondary. Note that you don’t believe Darwin on anything else. At best, you are evaluating his statements on their own merits rather than accepting them because Darwin said them. (At worst, you just like what you already believe and reject what you don’t.)

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I don’t think we’ll ever have perfect perception and reason, maybe so we’ll depend on God.

Really? Is God so needy as that?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Well, why not? I’m referring to Chesterton here.

Nothing can be accepted as true because Chesterton said it. Your only example, “Snakes!” is not in any way logical. And Chesterton’s claim doesn’t comport with my experience of either insanity or delirium.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Well, yes, I agree.

Then we are not deranged. Next topic.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Well, it’s consistent with natural selection. It’s also part of the Christian view, so I don’t see how this decides anything.

It decides this: you suppose God must be involved because natural selection couldn’t do it. Now you admit that natural selection could do it. So we have no argument that God must be involved. (Of course he still could, but that’s a different argument.)

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> We need help! I need glasses. And that’s not strictly a bad thing, it’s part of reality, we need help outside of ourselves, and that can bring us to those who can help us. And that’s actually a good thing, in various ways.

Nothing to do with optical illusions, and it’s back to the ad hoc argument about pain. Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> No, I agree it’s a possible explanation, I just don’t think it’s a probable one.

If it’s a possible explanation, that destroys your argument, which is a claim that only reason can produce reason. If unreason, in the form of natural selection, can produce reason, your claim is wrong.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> John Lennox I think it was who remarked that the mathemeticians have always known that the biologists are out to lunch, which is why they don’t associate very much.

Great, another unattributed, third person assertion. Yes, that’s convincing.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I do think it’s contradictory to say your thoughts are wholly determined by the motion of atoms in your head, and yet I should consider them real insights, that somehow also depend on the logic of my reasoning, and on real deductions that are not a puppet show.

And you admitted just recently that natural selection could account for human reason. Did you forget already? Sorry, it’s not contradictory at all. It’s just something you don’t choose to believe. Is it contradictory to say your thoughts are determined by the actions of your soul, or whatever?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But the problem with that is that delusional people are usually very logical!

Not in my experience. Who cares about Chesterton’s opinion?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I don’t understand this, how is what I said backwards?

Not going to explain it more than once in a single post. Look above. Or at any of the dozen or so previous times.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And where do I compare speech to the mind, certainly speech comes from minds, but where do I compare them? Or compare the mind to God?

You don’t understand your own analogy. Again, your claim is that only reason produces reason, while unreason produces only unreason. Irrational person says irrational things, while rational person says rational things. Irrational natural selection produces irrational being, rational God produces rational being. Note the correspondences here between the various causes (crazy person, sane person, natural selection, God) and the various results (irrational speech, rational speech, irrational mind, rational mind).

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But how is a statement of insanity nevertheless valid reasoning? How is natural selection some sort of reasoning process? Those are my points.

It isn’t, and it isn’t. If those are your points, I agree. The problem is where you go from there. None of this implies that natural selection can;’t produce a mind capable of reason. Why, you just said above that it could.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Are you saying people don’t do this? Sure they do, we do this all the time.

Maybe you do, but I don’t. Even in your example, the reasoning goes in the opposite direction. We don’t discount what they say because they’re crazy, we infer they’re crazy because they say crazy things.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And what would those be, specifically? Glad to learn.

I hope we both know that isn’t true. If you were glad to learn, you would read Eldredge and Gould 1972, which I have cited to you many times.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Prayer is making a request, not casting a spell.

Disitnction without a difference. I see that all your examples are incapable of being checked. Certainly there are no eyewitness accounts among them. But this is interesting:

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And I heard an account of someone who had a missing finger restored.

Permit me to doubt that this ever really happened. And enough with the Chesterton. What evidence?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 2:52am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/145 "2026-01-12T02:52:59Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Bad reasoning does not preclude correct reasoning.

I agree.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> I think you might be conflating “good” or correct reasoning with _all reasoning_.

I don’t know why you think that is my view, it is not.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> You seem to be making a case that reaching an incorrect conclusion implies that it was not a reasoned conclusion.

I again would mention the man in delirium, his conclusion is quite reasonable! He believes snakes are in the room because he sees them, his logic is correct, but his conclusion is incorrect, because his premise is wrong. His reasoning is based on an irrational cause, in a bad perception. We see this, and reject his conclusion, but not his reasoning.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Example: Isaac Newton was wrong about gravity - Einstein showed this - therefore Newton was not reasoning.

No, that is not my view at all. I would point out that Newton had incomplete evidence, that also can be the cause of an incorrect conclusion. Seeing that someone is saying something, and that an irrational cause is causing that thought, is also a reason to reject a statement. I mention that this is something we do all the time, because we do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 2:53am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/146 "2026-01-12T02:53:35Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > And matching reality what just what Darwin was concerned about, how can we conclude that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all?
> 
> We do not have to. Reality imposes itself on us.
> 
> You cannot be entirely rid of assumptions. Here is one. _You are a brain in a stimulus pod._ Prove me wrong.

But this is incoherent, if reality imposes itself on us, that is why our thoughts are related to reality. Then we will not have invalid assumptions, such as what you mention in your challenge.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> I assume that both our perceptions and thoughts are connected to reality, and further, that you, I, and Darwin for that matter, reason based on nothing more.

But now you are the one making an assumption! You are in fact, assuming your conclusion to the point at issue. And I certainly don’t simply assume a real connection between my thoughts and reality, and stop there as my conclusion, and Darwin clearly didn’t, either.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 4:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/147 "2026-01-12T04:08:03Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But now you are the one making an assumption! You are in fact, assuming your conclusion to the point at issue.

That is the exact point. You think that is inadequate, but _your_ assumptions are far more tenacious.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And I certainly don’t simply assume a real connection between my thoughts and reality, and stop there as my conclusion

Reality is the cliff’s edge. If you choose not to stop, that is up to you. Selection awaits.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 5:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/148 "2026-01-12T17:57:15Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I’m willing to forego reward for a time when pain and suffering cease.
> 
> Ah, so the pain and suffering you get in this life is enough for its good effect to last for eternity? But there’s a huge variation in the amount of pain and suffering in various people’s lives. Do some people just need more than others?

Some people certainly get more pain and suffering than others. And it’s not all based on what people need, see Hebrews 11:35. But varying pain doesn’t mean it’s all meaningless. Christians have always believed people get different rewards, if they get some rewards, and were glad there if there is also be an end to suffering and pain. Masochism has never been listed among the virtues.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > And what I said before is if there is nothing to overcome, what would there be to reward?
> 
> Heaven isn’t a reward for overcoming anything; it’s supposedly a reward for believing in Jesus. You need to get your story straight.

Actually the view is that heaven is a gift, it’s not earned by believing, salvation, including heaven, is given to us by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But I mentioned two reasons for suffering, reward, and refinement!
> 
> Problems with the latter too. People differ greatly in the amount of pain they suffer. Do they have different needs for refinement, or do some people just not get the needed refinement, unfortunately. Does no refinement happen in heaven? If so, why not? Perhaps everyone has by chance become maximally refined just as they die? Anyway, those are both ad hoc explanations purely to justify the idea that God inflicts suffering because it’s good for us. So why pray for him to end it?

A lot of questions! My point was that good character always comes as the result of handling pain and difficulty well. Again, what do we call children who always get what they want, who are never disciplined or called on to deny themselves? We call them “spoiled”, and with good reason.

But to the questions, yes, some people are worse than others, that would imply more need for refinement. And I happen to believe that refinement can also happen after we die, I believe the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31 is an illustration of this. I don’t believe in the “poof, you’re perfect” view at the moment of death for believers, which is actually the predominant view, for some reason. And I don’t hold that suffering is only for producing good results, it’s sometimes punishment, that’s certainly clear in scripture. But Paul prayed for an end to some suffering he was experiencing (2 Cor. 12:8), Jesus himself asked the cup of the cross to be removed, if possible (Mt. 26:39), we’re given examples and encouragement in many places to pray for healing. God wants us to be involved in asking for help, is my view.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > God is not present even in Paradise, for the Muslims.
> 
> Are you trying to convince me that Christianity is better than Islam? Why would you do such a thing?

We were discussing rewards, and heaven, and the Muslim Paradise is what most people think of as heaven. Stuff basically self-indulgence, that doesn’t satisfy us, even on earth. So I tend to take the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> How do you know your view of God is undistorted? How do you know that being bad at reasoning isn’t good for you?

I did state that needing help in reasoning, and asking for it, has good aspects to it. And I’m sure I don’t have a perfect view of God! But as I mentioned previously, I have good reason to believe he exists, and has revealed himself, and will reveal himself personally to those who seek him, so I’ve been busy doing that.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > “The description we have to give of thought as an evolutionary phenomenon always makes a tacit exception in favour of the thinking which we ourselves perform at that moment.” (Miracles)
> 
> Wrong quote. And the quote you give here simply assumes that if thought were an evolutionary phenomenon we would have no reason to believe in our thinking. Assuming what you intend to prove?

Certainly circular reasoning is a bad idea. But you misunderstand the quote, Lewis was taking the naturalist’s position, and showing a problem with it. Though I agree that you have to agree with the Lewis’ view as well, to get the point. But he wasn’t saying the naturalist position is circular, he was saying it has to borrow from the supernaturalist position, in order to make its argument.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@John\_Harshman](#):
> >
> > No, I’m saying that “various people said this” is not an argument for this being true. So again, why is this a problem?
> 
> Because it’s not a valid reason to reject a statement out of hand.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> First problem: not accepting that a statement is evidence for a claim being true is quite different from rejecting the truth of that statement.

Well, I agree with this latter statement, I was objecting to you saying “various people said this” is not an argument for a statement being true. Do you see how these are different? If you keep stumbling over things like this, I don’t know if we can have a good discussion.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Do you reject the testimony that Julius Caesar was a real person, because somebody said that?
> 
> No. I just don’t accept that it’s true just because somebody said it. See how that works? And in fact we have books written by Caesar, coins minted at his orders, and even better documentation of his immediate successor. You also confuse matters of fact with opinions.

So how do you know the books were written by Caesar? All we have are copies, by the way. Have you examined said coins yourself? Or the documents from his successor? Your “facts” are all based on what you call “hearsay.”

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You also confuse matters of fact with opinions. Testimony about Caesar’s existence are of the former sort, while doubts about natural origin and operation of the mind are of the latter sort.

I don’t claim doubts are facts, though. Doubts raise questions, and then we examine evidence to try and resolve them. Good grief…

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Briefly, again: we don’t reject what a person says because they’re irrational; we consider them irrational because of what they say.

No we don’t, though, once we know a person is drunk, we don’t examine their claim that there are snakes. This is absolutely true, people do this, people don’t argue with someone with dementia, but they don’t believe them, either, when they tell you about interacting with their deceased spouse, and they don’t look for evidence for their claim.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I said why “just somebody said it” is no reason for dismissing them.
> 
> In fact you didn’t say why. You just said it wasn’t a reason.

I’ve given you lots of reasons! You just dismiss them, and double-down on your claim.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > So we need to give them consideration, and evaluate why they said what they said.
> 
> No, we need to evaluate the evidence for the truth of what they said. Their motivations are at best secondary.

Where did I mention motives?! This is just a continual stream of misunderstandings. And certainly we need to evaluate evidence for what they said, starting by examining any reasons they give. All I’m saying is that we give good consideration to what people say, whom we consider reasonable. That’s it.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I don’t think we’ll ever have perfect perception and reason, maybe so we’ll depend on God.
> 
> Really? Is God so needy as that?

But I didn’t say God needs us to depend on him, that doesn’t follow from what I said.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Well, why not? I’m referring to Chesterton here.
> 
> Nothing can be accepted as true because Chesterton said it. Your only example, “Snakes!” is not in any way logical.

I don’t claim Chesterton should be believed without examination. And how is my example of delirium illogical? I’m certainly not going to believe you without examination of your evidence!

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> you suppose God must be involved because natural selection couldn’t do it. Now you admit that natural selection could do it. So we have no argument that God must be involved.

No, I say natural selection probably couldn’t do it, just as I say my laptop could have been assembled by a tornado (re Fred Hoyle and his 747), but I don’t consider it a reasonable possibility.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > We need help! I need glasses. And that’s not strictly a bad thing, it’s part of reality, we need help outside of ourselves, and that can bring us to those who can help us. And that’s actually a good thing, in various ways.
> 
> Nothing to do with optical illusions, and it’s back to the ad hoc argument about pain. Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

Optical illusions mean our perceptions can deceive us, so we need help, was the argument. So I didn’t ignore your point. And what is ad hoc here? And another straw man here, alas, my view is not that everything is for the best, you have perhaps heard of a place called hell.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I do think it’s contradictory to say your thoughts are wholly determined by the motion of atoms in your head, and yet I should consider them real insights, that somehow also depend on the logic of my reasoning, and on real deductions that are not a puppet show.
> 
> And you admitted just recently that natural selection could account for human reason. Did you forget already? Sorry, it’s not contradictory at all. It’s just something you don’t choose to believe. Is it contradictory to say your thoughts are determined by the actions of your soul, or whatever?

Again, my view is that reason from natural processes is so unlikely to be unreasonable to hold to. And you haven’t addressed my point here in this statement, if my thoughts are a puppet show, I can’t consider them also detached and independent somehow, which is what people do require for real deductions. Until the naturalists came along…

And it’s not contradictory for me to be the real and ultimate author of my thoughts, because I believe my thoughts are not caused by a source other than my soul, and on examination of the foundation, I see that they could be due to a reasoning ability given by a self-existent reason.

Most people actually believe they have a soul, that can think! It is only the enlightened, who tell them this is an illusion, and then drive into a ditch.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But the problem with that is that delusional people are usually very logical!
> 
> Not in my experience.

Why then is it call delusional thinking? But tell us about your experience.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Again, your claim is that only reason produces reason, while unreason produces only unreason. Irrational person says irrational things, while rational person says rational things. Irrational natural selection produces irrational being, rational God produces rational being.

One correction, irrational people do still have some good perceptions, and reasoning, and conclusions. We reject irrational conclusions, not people, when we see the conclusions have irrational causes. And similarly, rational people do say irrational things.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> We don’t discount what they say because they’re crazy, we infer they’re crazy because they say crazy things.

No, I say we look at the causes, not at the people. And we don’t continue examining evidence, once we’ve concluded that there are irrational causes at work in a line of conclusions they are making.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Prayer is making a request, not casting a spell.
> 
> Disitnction without a difference. I see that all your examples are incapable of being checked. Certainly there are no eyewitness accounts among them.

But I gave you an example of healing I experienced. I have medical records! I have a good number of such healings, in myself and others, some of them even more dramatic.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > And I heard an account of someone who had a missing finger restored.
> 
> Permit me to doubt that this ever really happened.

Well, fine, permit me to request that you cease raising the bar, moving the goalposts.

Try praying yourself, my friend! It’s very convincing, if you get actual healing. And again, it’s not magic, it’s not guaranteed, but there is someone who heard me, several times.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 5:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/149 "2026-01-12T17:57:35Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> I assume that both our perceptions and thoughts are connected to reality, and further, that you, I, and Darwin for that matter, reason based on nothing more.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But now you are the one making an assumption! You are in fact, assuming your conclusion to the point at issue.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> That is the exact point. You think that is inadequate, but your assumptions are far more tenacious.

But this is incoherent, you need to show me how you did not assume your conclusion. Instead, you claim I made your point (you agree with me?), I think my statement is inadequate (whatever that might mean), and I have more tenacious assumptions (but this does not address my claim that you were assuming your conclusion).

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > And I certainly don’t simply assume a real connection between my thoughts and reality, and stop there as my conclusion
> 
> Reality is the cliff’s edge. If you choose not to stop, that is up to you. Selection awaits.

Well, I prefer to check the foundation, and see if there is good reason to conclude that my thoughts have some connection with reality. If this is not of interest to someone, to you for instance, that is (as you said) up to you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 9:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/150 "2026-01-12T21:00:53Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But this is incoherent, you need to show me how you did not assume your conclusion.

But I did assume my conclusion.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Well, I prefer to check the foundation, and see if there is good reason to conclude that my thoughts have some connection with reality. If this is not of interest to someone, to you for instance, that is (as you said) up to you.

This is of interest, but beyond aligning with reality, you have not and cannot check any further foundation. Sure you can engage in theological and philosophical speculation, and contrive some reassuring system where your rationality would derive from some ultimate cause. But that is transcendent at best or fictitious at worst. Thus, your claim that you have checked the foundational source of rationality is empty, and conversely, you have not identified any inadequacy in a natural explanation. If that means you lose confidence in your faculties, well too bad so sad, but you are no further ahead either way.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 9:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/151 "2026-01-12T21:29:21Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Some people certainly get more pain and suffering than others. And it’s not all based on what people need, see Hebrews 11:35. But varying pain doesn’t mean it’s all meaningless. Christians have always believed people get different rewards, if they get some rewards, and were glad there if there is also be an end to suffering and pain. Masochism has never been listed among the virtues.

None of that is in any way a response to anything I asked about.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Actually the view is that heaven is a gift, it’s not earned by believing, salvation, including heaven, is given to us by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Yes, through faith. Exactly what I said. Now if you want to parse the difference between “gift” and “reward”, go to it. But you have freely used both in this connection. So if there were nothing to overcome, there would still be a reward for faith, right? So much for your initial claim.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> A lot of questions!

None of which you answer. You just obfuscate, contradict yourself, and wander around at random.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And I happen to believe that refinement can also happen after we die

Then what’s the need for refinement through suffering while we’re living? And is this refinement after we die accomplished through suffering? So there is suffering in heaven, or are you talking about purgatory?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And I don’t hold that suffering is only for producing good results, it’s sometimes punishment, that’s certainly clear in scripture.

We could go into justifications for punishment, but I fear it would strain you.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> God wants us to be involved in asking for help, is my view.

Why would he want that?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But you misunderstand the quote, Lewis was taking the naturalist’s position, and showing a problem with it.

Yes, he was showing there’s a problem by first assuming there’s a problem. That’s circular. What is this tacit assumption Lewis refers to? Why would we have to borrow from the supernatural position?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> If you keep stumbling over things like this, I don’t know if we can have a good discussion.

Was that an attempt at humor?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> So how do you know the books were written by Caesar? All we have are copies, by the way. Have you examined said coins yourself? Or the documents from his successor? Your “facts” are all based on what you call “hearsay.”

No, that’s not what “hearsay” means, and I think you’re confusing me with someone else there. Yes, I have examined a few of those coins, though more of his successors’. More important is the distinction between claims of fact and opinion. Only the former can be evidence. Of course any claim of fact can be false, but the more independent claims, the better the evidence. But a bunch of opinions, even a big bunch, aren’t evidence.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I don’t claim doubts are facts, though.

Yes you do. You were using various stated opinions as evidence that you were correct.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> No we don’t

This seems a fundamental disagreement. If you just keep repeating this claim, there will be no progress.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I’ve given you lots of reasons!

Not one.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Where did I mention motives?

You really have to start understanding words. The motivation is the cause for somebody saying something.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> All I’m saying is that we give good consideration to what people say, whom we consider reasonable.

Perhaps we do, but we would be better advised to avoid such biases and consider what people say on its own merits. Do you know what an ad hominem fallacy is?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But I didn’t say God needs us to depend on him, that doesn’t follow from what I said.

Sure. You said God wants us to depend on him. But why? Sounds needy to me. Or did you mean to say something else?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And how is my example of delirium illogical?

You are confused. It’s the statements of the delirious person that are illogical, contrary to Chesterton.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> No, I say natural selection probably couldn’t do it

You really should try harder to say what you mean. But you’re still confused, and you contradict yourself. If it’s possible though very unlikely for natural selection to assemble a conscious mind, that means the mind must be a physical thing, composed of the interactions of atoms, which you deny. So if we’re talking about a brain, not a soul, why couldn’t (probably) natural selection do it?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Optical illusions mean our perceptions can deceive us

But why? Wouldn’t a rational creator make a rational optical system? And why is it a good thing that our perceptions can deceive us? Would it be a good thing if you were a paraplegic? You’d need even more help then.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> my view is not that everything is for the best, you have perhaps heard of a place called hell

Hell is another irrelevant digression, and I will resist the temptation to discuss its absurdities and implications. Why would God create a world that’s not the best possible?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And you haven’t addressed my point here in this statement, if my thoughts are a puppet show, I can’t consider them also detached and independent somehow, which is what people do require for real deductions.

Nobody says your thoughts are a puppet show; that’s not a consequence of a physical process.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And it’s not contradictory for me to be the real and ultimate author of my thoughts, because I believe my thoughts are not caused by a source other than my soul

So nothing causes your soul to have those thoughts? That means your thoughts are uncaused. Why should we believe that uncaused thoughts have any basis in reality?

You are descending into the homunculus theory, with homunculi all the way down.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Most people actually believe they have a soul, that can think!

Well, it must be true, then. Right?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Why then is it call delusional thinking? But tell us about your experience.

It’s called delusional thinking because it’s delusional, and it’s thinking of a sort. My most recent experience is with you. Delusional and devoid of logic. And there’s your insane person shouting “Snake!”; was he being logical then?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> We reject irrational conclusions, not people, when we see the conclusions have irrational causes. And similarly, rational people do say irrational things.

No, we reject the conclusions when we see the conclusions are irrational. We don’t have to consider the causes.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But I gave you an example of healing I experienced.

Anecdote is not the singular of data. The real question would be to compare the proportion of recoveries subsequent to prayer with the proportion not subsequent to prayer. My prediction would be no significant difference. One problem is that you can explain both recovery: God answered prayer — and non-recovery: God chose not to answer.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Try praying yourself, my friend!

Sorry, no. But should I pray to Ganesh, Buddha, or someone else? How should I choose?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 6:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/152 "2026-01-13T18:27:49Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Actually the view is that heaven is a gift, it’s not earned by believing, salvation, including heaven, is given to us by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Are you a Paulian or a Christian?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 6:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/153 "2026-01-13T18:27:59Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Try praying yourself, my friend!
> 
> Sorry, no. But should I pray to Ganesh, Buddha, or someone else? How should I choose?

Well, Ganesh is the obvious choice if you’re traveling. He’s on every Indian Hindu taxi driver’s dashboard.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 6:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/154 "2026-01-13T18:28:07Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> But I did assume my conclusion.

But that is not a valid way to argue a point.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> This is of interest, but beyond aligning with reality, you have not and cannot check any further foundation. Sure you can engage in theological and philosophical speculation, and contrive some reassuring system where your rationality would derive from some ultimate cause. But that is transcendent at best or fictitious at worst.

Actually, there are a good number of reasons for believing in the validity of reasoning, if it comes from a reasoning source. For one thing, we all demand this, in order to accept peoples’ statements. You would not accept my arguments here, if you thought they were generated by AI. I’ve seen people dismiss posts here for that very reason. Other arguments have been presented, and these are not just speculation. This also appears to be a rejection of my statements, because they are not coming from reason, rather they are from a nonreasoning cause, from sheer speculation.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> you have not identified any inadequacy in a natural explanation.

I’ve pointed out inadequacies, actually, mentioning Darwin’s concern, for instance.

“With me the horrid doubt always arises, whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

So that’s one reason, others have been mentioned.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 6:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155 "2026-01-13T18:28:43Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Some people certainly get more pain and suffering than others. And it’s not all based on what people need, see Hebrews 11:35. But varying pain doesn’t mean it’s all meaningless. Christians have always believed people get different rewards, if they get some rewards, and were glad there if there is also be an end to suffering and pain. Masochism has never been listed among the virtues.
> 
> None of that is in any way a response to anything I asked about.

Speaking of a non-response! How does this not address your challenges and questions?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Now if you want to parse the difference between “gift” and “reward”, go to it.

Certainly, gifts are not earned, rewards are.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> So if there were nothing to overcome, there would still be a reward for faith, right?

No, again, that is not the Christian view, faith is not something that is meritorious, it is also a gift, God is the source of it, not us (Heb. 12:2)

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > A lot of questions!
> 
> None of which you answer. You just obfuscate, contradict yourself, and wander around at random.

I could reply the same! I think I will, another non-response. How have I contradicted myself, for starters?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > And I happen to believe that refinement can also happen after we die
> 
> Then what’s the need for refinement through suffering while we’re living?

Because I think the suffering after death is worse, as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> And is this refinement after we die accomplished through suffering? So there is suffering in heaven, or are you talking about purgatory?

Yes, and I’m not talking about Catholic purgatory, more like what Lewis described, both of us being Protestants.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > God wants us to be involved in asking for help, is my view.
> 
> Why would he want that?

Because it’s healthy to acknowledge that we need help, that we are not omnipotent, that we are not God. That’s one reason.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But you misunderstand the quote, Lewis was taking the naturalist’s position, and showing a problem with it.
> 
> Yes, he was showing there’s a problem by first assuming there’s a problem. That’s circular. What is this tacit assumption Lewis refers to? Why would we have to borrow from the supernatural position?

Actually, he’s pointing to reasoning we all do subscribe to, we reject reasoning when we see it comes from nonreasoning causes, and this is not circular. Lewis points out that naturalists feel the need to tacitly ask for an exception for the reasoning they are doing, when they are making their argument that all reasoning is caused by nonreasoning processes. If the position is that there very argument for the cause of reasoning is produced by non-reasoning processes, they know that people will dismiss their argument. Just (as I have mentioned) they dismiss other statements that they see come from nonreasoning causes, just as you all do here, when you claim my statements are due to some non-reason, such as being sheer speculation, or due to some unthinking commitment to intelligent design, etc.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Yes, I have examined a few of those coins, though more of his successors’.

And read the inscriptions? That’s not very easy, the letters are usually odd and even indistinct. But if so, and if you know Latin, then good for you, how then do you know Latin words mean what they say they mean? Eventually “evidence” turns out to be an appeal to authority, as a rule.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> But a bunch of opinions, even a big bunch, aren’t evidence.

There you go, you’re back to saying only what you have examined and verified for yourself, can be beieved. But see above, most of what people claim as what they have verified, eventually leads to an appeal to authority, to “someone’s opinion”.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I don’t claim doubts are facts, though.
> 
> Yes you do. You were using various stated opinions as evidence that you were correct.

Oh dear. Doubts raise questions, they don’t answer them. Now I have pointed to various peoples’ doubts, as evidence that they are valid concerns. But I don’t consider them facts, they need to be answered with facts, and evidence, and arguments.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Where did I mention motives?
> 
> You really have to start understanding words. The motivation is the cause for somebody saying something.

Certainly, the question was, where did I mention them?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > All I’m saying is that we give good consideration to what people say, whom we consider reasonable.
> 
> Perhaps we do, but we would be better advised to avoid such biases and consider what people say on its own merits. Do you know what an ad hominem fallacy is?

It’s expected that people will defend their conclusions, but not every conclusion can be defended in detail, that would require an endless stream of justification and evidence, eventually we have to stop and say, “I believe you when you say this Latin word means that, you don’t have to prove everything to me.” And indeed I know what an ad hominem fallacy is, people use this all the time on me, for example, saying I don’t understand words, or that I just obfuscate, contradict myself, and wander around at random! Oops, I think you just did all that.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You said God wants us to depend on him. But why? Sounds needy to me.

But a want does not imply a need. You may want a fleet of Lamborghinis, but you probably don’t need them.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> It’s the statements of the delirious person that are illogical, contrary to Chesterton.

So you are saying the causes of delirium are somehow logical?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> If it’s possible though very unlikely for natural selection to assemble a conscious mind, that means the mind must be a physical thing, composed of the interactions of atoms, which you deny.

My view is that natural selection could possibly produce a brain that has valid reasoning, just like a tornado could assemble my laptop! I think I used that example.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Optical illusions mean our perceptions can deceive us
> 
> But why? Wouldn’t a rational creator make a rational optical system? And why is it a good thing that our perceptions can deceive us? Would it be a good thing if you were a paraplegic? You’d need even more help then.

A rational creator might have more purposes than just making perfect machinery. And it’s good if we need help, as I have argued. And I know of [one quadriplegic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Eareckson_Tada), who concludes that her disability has resulted in her good. Though it’s certainly not good per se.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Why would God create a world that’s not the best possible?

The Christian claim is that he will, in the new creation. And that this creation has purpose, too.

"“If you think of this world as a place simply intended for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place for training and correction and it’s not so bad.” (C.S. Lewis)

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > if my thoughts are a puppet show, I can’t consider them also detached and independent somehow, which is what people do require for real deductions.
> 
> Nobody says your thoughts are a puppet show; that’s not a consequence of a physical process.

In a puppet show, the puppets aren’t initiating anything in and of themselves, so I think the analogy is apt.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > And it’s not contradictory for me to be the real and ultimate author of my thoughts, because I believe my thoughts are not caused by a source other than my soul
> 
> So nothing causes your soul to have those thoughts? That means your thoughts are uncaused.

No, I am saying I am the author of my thoughts. That is actually what people think, they don’t think this is a delusion.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Most people actually believe they have a soul, that can think!
> 
> Well, it must be true, then. Right?

And there’s evidence for this, as well. Not to mention that people who think their thoughts are being controlled, get steered to an asylum.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> It’s called delusional thinking because it’s delusional, and it’s thinking of a sort.

I agree, just my point.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> My most recent experience is with you. Delusional and devoid of logic. And there’s your insane person shouting “Snake!”; was he being logical then?

It’’s odd then, that you respond to my points, as if they were coming from a source that is not irrational. And the man in delirium is reasoning quite soundly, I think I made that point, it is the source of his thoughts that is faulty, his premises come from a nonreasoning source, from a delusion.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > We reject irrational conclusions, not people, when we see the conclusions have irrational causes. And similarly, rational people do say irrational things.
> 
> No, we reject the conclusions when we see the conclusions are irrational. We don’t have to consider the causes.

But you just did that with me! You say I am confused, for instance, and thus you imply that you can reject what I say, you point to the cause of my incorrect reasoning and conclusions.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But I gave you an example of healing I experienced.
> 
> Anecdote is not the singular of data.

There is data if I have medical records, which I do.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> The real question would be to compare the proportion of recoveries subsequent to prayer with the proportion not subsequent to prayer. My prediction would be no significant difference.

Many studies have been done, some showing no effect, some showing an effect. You can check into this if you wish.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> One problem is that you can explain both recovery: God answered prayer — and non-recovery: God chose not to answer.

Right, as I said, it’s a request, not magic, nor some heavenly vending machine. But one really supernatural answer is all that is required here, to prove there is something supernatural going on. Or Someone supernatural. As I mentioned, I was diagnosed with mitral valve syndrome, then I was told by another doctor that I don’t have it anymore, and then another doctor confirmed that heart valves don’t just get better on their own. So I conclude that prayer for me was answered, that this was not due to natural processes, but something supernatural.

I have had a number of such dramatic healings! And some not so dramatic, but as they pile up, they being to be rather undeniable.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Try praying yourself, my friend!
> 
> Sorry, no. But should I pray to Ganesh, Buddha, or someone else? How should I choose?

I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![misterme987](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/misterme987/32/15207_2.png) [@misterme987](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/misterme987)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/156 "2026-01-13T18:34:26Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”

That’s a fine request, but can you grapple with the possibility that someone could sincerely offer that prayer and come away still not believing in God?

I’m a Christian too btw.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 7:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/157 "2026-01-13T19:28:30Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> No, that is not my view at all. I would point out that Newton had incomplete evidence, that also can be the cause of an incorrect conclusion. Seeing that someone is saying something, and that an irrational cause is causing that thought, is also a reason to reject a statement. I mention that this is something we do all the time, because we do.

I’m glad you agree. I bring it up because you make statements like this …

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Yet we reject a quite logical argument that stems from paranoia, from unreasoning causes! If everyone is out to get you, you quite logically won’t call the police if something bad happens to you, because of course, they are out to get you too. **An argument coming from nonreason, we always reject it, we don’t consider that valid reasoning,** it’s part of a meritorious argument.

The paranoid is reasoning, albeit from incorrect information or mental aberration, but that is not “coming from nonreason”; it is reasoning to an incorrect conclusion. You see the difference? You keep going on about _reason not coming from non-reason_, but I think you mean something different.

And FWIW, it is also possibly (but perhaps unlikely) to reach a correct conclusion from faulty reasoning.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 7:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/158 "2026-01-13T19:29:08Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”

Genuinely doing this sincerely is among the reasons I stoppped believing in my mid-twenties. That is to say, though I always had doubts I was already a believer back then, but went through an extended period of analysing the basis for my faith. It sort of culminated with the realization I could never fully convince myself and stop doubting without something concrete and compelling.

Spoiler: nothing happened. God didn’t reveal himself.

Now it’s your turn to rationalize why it didn’t happen with some ad-hoc story you can’t substantiate and will almost certainly be false.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 7:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/159 "2026-01-13T19:29:37Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> He’s on every Indian Hindu taxi driver’s dashboard.

He’s the remover of obstacles; very handy for a taxi driver.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 8:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/160 "2026-01-13T20:49:13Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> I assume that both our perceptions and thoughts are connected to reality, and further, that you, I, and Darwin for that matter, reason based on nothing more.

Me: I’m making an assumption

Lee: But that’s an assumption

Me: Yes, I’m assuming that rationality is accounted for by reality

Lee: You are concluding your assumption

Me: It is an assumption, not a conclusion

Lee: But you cannot argue that way

Me: It’s not an argument, I just assume that we can ascertain external reality, you can do no better.

Lee: So what’s your argument?

🙄

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I’ve pointed out inadequacies, actually

Yes. Reasoning is fallible, which is consistent with natural development, and not being derived from some ultimate, self sufficient source.

If reason is fallible, then it cannot be trusted absolutely. That is indeed the case, but that does not necessitate it is hopeless. We muddle along as best we can.

Paradoxically, your reasoning exhibits that reason cannot be trusted. You may want, desire, demand, a more foundational assurance, but you can’t always get what you want just because you want it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 8:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/161 "2026-01-13T20:49:31Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Just (as I have mentioned) they dismiss other statements that they see come from nonreasoning causes, just as you all do here, when you claim my statements are due to some non-reason, such as being sheer speculation, or due to some unthinking commitment to intelligent design, etc.

Stop right now telling me why I reject certain claims. You have been informed previously that my test of anyone’s statements is how they measure against reality, not the source.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569.md?page=7)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569.md?page=9)