Actually your formatting came out fine. Sorry about the lack of “preview” for comments. Mine is a low-budget website. By the way, your Panda’s Thumb is very cool! Since you’re about defending the integrity of science, I welcome your thoughtful comment. You make an excellent point that theology and science, while they have similar methods, are not “quite” similar methodologically in the sense they are the same. Prof. Prinicipe’s point, and my point in the post. is that science and theology are more similar methodologically than is generally believed, especially among those who feel threatened by theology. Prof. Principe is talking about “good” science and “good” theology. Neither depends on rhetoric and persuasion. Both depend upon reason, especially the application of logic, to justify claims. You are right that theology often deals with issues that have no possible reference to observable evidence, but theology does have to take into account the evidence that is observable (current scientific knowledge). St. Augustine argued that (good) Christian theology cannot make claims that don’t square with what we know about the material world (the Book of Nature); therefore, whatever claims are made about the immaterial world (assuming there is one) have to be logically consistent with what scientists can convince us is true in terms of available evidence. As for resolution of conflict, I want to repeat Prof. Principe’s distinction between theology and religion, the latter being a human institution that may or may not be informed by good theology (as St. Augustine and others define “good”). Institutional religion, especially when it is given political/economic power, has and does use the three methods of suppression you list. However, if you have spent time in a university or a dispersed research community, which I’m sure you have, surely you have seen all three of these methods applied to “dissenters” from current scientific conventional wisdom, even when the dissenters are supported by better evidence. These are ugly traits of human society in general, but more shocking when seen among highly intelligent and schooled scientists or theologians. You are right that material evidence makes it a lot easier for scientists to resolve such conflict in favor of the truth than it is for theologians dealing with immaterial phenomena. Finally, in the interest of defending the integrity of theology as well as science, I encourage you to avoid dismissing St. Augustine as a mere speculator. His works are often masterpieces of both inductive and deductive reasoning (even if you cannot agree with his starting assumptions), not all that dissimilar from the masterpieces of Charles Darwin and other esteemed natural philosophers (a.k.a., scientists).
Thanks for your interest. Stay tuned for new posts, but you’ll have to be patient. I have a very demanding day job.
All the best,
Chris Dunford

They [science and theology] each include both a body of knowledge claims and a set of methods for gaining, assessing, accumulating and integrating the knowledge claims. Methodologically, good science and good theology are quite similar, even though their knowledge claims are mostly about quite different realms of reality.

I have to take issue with the notion that good science and good theology are methodologically similar. They differ enormously in one very critical respect: their method for justifying knowledge claims and resolving conflicts. Science in the end appeals to evidence — systematic, intersubjectively observable and replicable research that yields data that both sides of a scientific dispute can agree is dispositive. Theology as Prof. Principe defines it, on the other hand, has no comparable methodology for resolving conflicts. It depends on rhetoric and persuasion rather than evidence of the sort science uses. That’s not to say rhetoric and persuasion are irrelevant in science, but that in science evidence trumps rhetoric.

The history of religion in the western world amply illustrates the three methods religions use to resolve conflict: suppression (and not infrequently repression) of dissenters, mutual agreement to paper over differences (usually an unstable state), and schism. Professor Principe is over-stating the similarity and seriously understating the difference between the two.

Further, there’s this:

Nonetheless, they [alleged components of scientific "faith"] prove themselves useful, indeed essential, for science to progress. We are comfortable with these leaps of faith, because they allow us to generate reliable and useful knowledge claims about the world around us.

That statement contains its own refutation. Were the knowledge claims about the world around us that are generated by science not “reliable and useful,” we would know immediately that our “faith” is false — our “faith” is subject to test in a way that theological “faith” is not.

Augustine was undoubtedly a sharp guy, but to interpret a vague resemblance between his speculations about the beginning of the universe and its subsequent development as a foreshadowing of Big Bang theory is on a level with attributing prophetic powers to Nostradamus on a tortured reading of his predictions. I’m not impressed, frankly.

Nevertheless, I do look forward to the rest of your posts on this topic. Thanks for putting in the time.

(And I sure miss comment preview: I click “Submit” with trepidation over formatting!)

Complete information is available at http://www.blogfordarwin.com, but it’s easy to participate. Basically, the project calls for each blogger to post about Charles Darwin on their blog at some point the 12th-15th of February 2009 and submitting the post’s URL to me via BlogCarnival.com (http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_5674.html). I’ll then publish posts on BlogForDarwin.com (in full, excerpted, or perhaps linkable title form–I’m not sure yet which will work best). BlogForDarwin.com will then remain online as an educational resource.

Thank you,
Scott