Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[SteveII]

I understand your point but my reply is that you need to distinguish between a religious claim that a miracle (supernaturally caused event) has occurred and a religious belief that makes a claim about the world/how it works/the way things are. With this distinction, scientific fact can certainly prove religious beliefs about how the world works to be wrong. 

Not unless science can, indeed, comment upon what the claimants believe to be supernatural.  Contrary to your previous remarks.  

We need to examine miracles some more.  On one hand, supernatural interventions in the affairs of the normal course of nature are an exception, not the rule. So for proper belief that such an event has occurred, one has to have reasons for thinking so. Among other things (like theology and common sense), scientific facts can be used to examine the circumstances and reasons and if it is found that a known natural explanation is more likely, then it is more reasonable to assume no supernatural causation. However, because there is some possibility that supernatural agency was involved, it can not be ruled out 100%. So, while we can't be sure an event was not effected by a supernatural agent, I don't think we are warranted to claim so without reasons (which themselves are verifiable).

We don't, and it would be a sad day if we did.....since there aren't any to examine.  You're no longer talking about discarding contradictory narratives, mind you..you're fielding an argument from ignorance..which is -exactly- what you said should be discarded.  In fact, it's the only example you chose to expressly include.

If a person holds religious beliefs that are opposed to scientific fact, then they are really not true religious beliefs (perhaps a god-of-the-gaps belief) and should be discarded.

B-mine, and so the question remains..should we discard these beliefs or exempt them through rationalizations?  Why, either way?

First, a real miracle would not be opposed to scientific fact. It is simply non-natural causation and not violating anything except the idea of a closed system (a metaphysical question and not a scientific one). However the claim of a real miracle can be examined and are not exempt from scrutiny by science and other fields. The fact that we cannot be certain does not mean we cannot assign a low probability and dismiss beliefs of low probability. 

We should discard god-of-the-gaps beliefs if there is no other reason to believe supernatural causation. But God creating the universe and life are not god-of-the-gaps beliefs. We might not know how this came about, but we believe because it is core to theology that he did.