James, (all) If you have the option of a religious, philosophical, or scientific

James, (all)
If you have the option of a religious, philosophical, or scientific explanation of these ‘origins’, then why do you choose the religious and not the scientific?

We can explain the same behavior (Gnosticism) in the method of the wisdom literature of every civilization. What’s so fascinating about the religious frame? (Same criticism I have of Peterson.)

We use what we understand, and we understand what we know. Is the religious frame the one you understand? Why wouldn’t you (or anyone) just explain the behavior using incentives – where the method (logic) of a culture’s wisdom literature is just a means of justifying those incentives and objectives?

The reason I ask is that you’re accusing (correctly) the opposition (and others who failed) of the anti-empirical enlightenment trap, but aren’t you just backdating the same problem to the religious? (yes)

I’m curious more so than anything else. Partly because there are limits to the frame you’re building just like there have been to the previous generations of thinkers for the same reasons you identify.

Cheers.