Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[SteveII]

To make a statement like "my theology will change as science proposes new theories" is even worse.

So in response, you'd prefer to make the statement, "my theology will not change, no matter what we learn." I'm baffled that you feel this is an improvement. 

You're reinterpreting my meaning: "proposes new theories" does not equal "learn". 

It has to be a case by case basis. Is x scientific theory compatible with y theological concept? Perhaps we need to adjust our theological understanding because new facts come to light.

But you've already stated that there is no X that will ever prompt you to abandon Y completely, which renders the whole discussion moot. If you won't allow science, which is nothing more than a method of decoding the world based on observations, to sway your outlook, if you're holding theology to be, at its core, inviolable, then what does it matter? You're just paying lip service to learning shit around the periphery of your worldview, while disregarding observations in favor of your own presupposed solipsism at the core.

What matters here isn't what the data would probabilistically lead to, but rather what you want to be true. So why bother holding your theology up in comparison to anything you experience?

You are right. There is no x that will every prompt me to abandon y completely. However, it is not because theology is inviolable and I am faced with the possibility of conflicting conclusions. If my worldview is true, scientific facts will never conflict with it. If it does, then x is either not a scientific fact or y theological concept was not understood fully because of gaps in our knowledge when the theological concept was formed. I don't know how to make this clearer. Science and theology are not at odds. Talk of "paying lip service" to science and "disregarding observations" are all incorrect assumptions/characterizations. 

My caution is scientific theories. By necessity, they presuppose naturalism and as such may be wrong--especially if a theological concept requires God's interaction with nature. 

First of all, this statement is largely circular: the science doesn't think you're right, but if you're right, then the science is wrong. Pretty big "if" there.

Secondly, science takes methodological naturalism as an axiom because it has to, but that just restricts it methods to those things that can be reliably detected, with sources that can be discovered. If your god was detectable- detectability being the thing you would need to rationally hold belief in god - then that would be within the purview of science. Seems to me like you just want to skip the rational steps and presuppose your god is involved while avoiding any talk of actually detecting that, which... I'd love to know why you think that's a reasonable justification for disregarding science.

God being detectable by science makes no sense. Science measures the natural world. How could it measure a supernatural entity? God is detectable in other ways: natural theology, direct revelation, the events of the NT, personal experiences and therefore belief in him is rational. Once again, science and theology are not at odds. Why does almost every one of your sentences seem to assume there is a conflict? What science am I disregarding? 

No, ontologically speaking, core theological beliefs have nothing at all to do with "god of the gaps". They have to do with specific revelation as to the purpose of the universe, God's place in it, our place in it, the relationship between God and man, and eschatology. 

From everything you've said thus far, I'm feeling pretty correct about putting the god of the gaps right at the center of your core theology. You've already said you're willing to just assume your god is involved in whatever processes science describes, after all: that's the gap you're putting your god into. "My god does that, you just can't detect it." He's all warm and safe from falsifiability, but that's all you're really doing.

Assuming God did something z that he says he did and then finding there is a gap in our scientific understanding that lines up with what God said-- is not a god-of-the-gaps argument. It is a conclusion based on logic and observation and therefore God causing z is a rational belief. While God is not falsifiable (the whole science-can't-measure-non-natural-things problem), theological concepts can be. What scientific fact has come to light recently that undermines any theological concepts? 

I'm sure they do. 

I think Gen 1 was not written to be taken literal. Gen is not a science book. The beginning of Gen is older than the rest and has a different style. It is sufficient to tell bronze age people that the world has an origin and a purpose and monotheism is true (as apposed to other cultures who had polytheistic roots and varied creation stories).

I don't know how Adam and Eve fit in (and when). I believe there was a literal Adam and Eve because Jesus and Paul spoke of a literal Adam. 

The fact that what I call core and what other call core beliefs may be different is just to point out the nature of any complex belief system. If you think I am mis-characterizing common protestant theology, please tell me where.

I'm not asking you what you believe, I'm asking you why you think what you believe deserves to be called core theology, while less common beliefs that differ from your own do not. What is the metric you're using to separate the core theology from the optional theology?

That question reveals the problem: you don't have a metric for that, do you? You have a list of things you think belong in the correct category, and a list of things that don't, but no actual criteria for determining which is which, because it really just boils down to those things you already believe, and those things you don't... am I wrong?

There are objective core theological concepts that if you do not ascribe to, you are not considered Christian. They are not mysterious--you find them in the NT. While there might be a few "important" concepts that are disagreed upon, I don't think they apply to this conversation. By that objective standard, YEC belief about Gen 1 do not qualify as "core" because failing to believe in a literal Gen 1 is not necessary to believe/accept the NT content and therefore to be a Christian.