The more I think about it, though, the more I feel that what is gained by having high barriers to entry to the debate in terms of detailed understanding of each worldview does not outweigh the resulting narrowing of the range of participants. I fear that restricting the debate to only those who have high-relief understanding of various theologies as well as scientific processes and areas of knowledge will result in a carefully calibrated, highly technical accord that ultimately says very little of interest, and means next to nothing to anyone without the dual expertise of those who crafted it (much like a diplomatic communique following a closely watched but unproductive summit meeting).

We would expect such a document as that to reflect the intellectual inclinations and proclivities of those who (for lack of a better term) negotiated it, and my guess would be that if those participants were all possessed of considerable knowledge or expertise in both some area(s) of science and one or more religion, there would likely be a homogeneity among their outlooks that would not serve the purpose of a full debate between removed, but we hope reconcilable, viewpoints. Isn’t the point of debate to bring adherents of opposing positions together? How is that furthered by narrowing the range of views represented?

It seems to me that one example you give is mistaken — I’m not at all sure that a group of scientists who had gathered for the express purpose of engaging members of religious communities on the topic of the relation of science to religion would dismiss one of their opposite number for making an incorrect scientific claim, as long as it was a mistake made in good faith and they didn’t sense that it was in some way laying a misleading predicate for later argumentation. I’d rather have more people involved in the debate, even if that means more time is spent clearing up misconceptions and misconstruals. There is mainly upside in the extra time spent that way in my view — greater mutual understanding at least of others’ views, if not actual reconciliation, among more people. And as for those who will not accept being corrected in an area outside their expertise, we should trust that arguments built on misrepresentations of the views being critiqued will justly not find success in the marketplace of ideas.

They are different but also share elements that do overlap.

Your always welcome to jump in anytime. Thanks for your comment.

1) Highly selective application of the anthropic principle. Coyne uses the AP as an explanation of cosmological fine-tuning, but then won’t apply it to the observed fact of human evolution in his earlier discussion of that. If I were more suspicious, I would even suspect that he ordered his argument in this way so that readers wouldn’t be expecting the AP to show up again when he’s rebutting Giberson and Miller’s claims.

2) Understanding of physical laws as proscriptive rather than descriptive.

Both are a little confusing, and a little disappointing.

What religion and mysticism are concerned with is this actual experience we have of being conscious, being aware, having a “soul” so to speak, that actually experiences this body, mind, brain, life, etc. When we say that consciousness is primary, it means just that – our actual experience is primarily that of being consciousness, being awareness, and any objects to our awareness are secondary. Thus, even the body and brain, being vehicles of our awareness, are secondary to awareness itself, at least experientially. And this is the fundamental basis for believing that consciousness survives death, and is, at its root, a greater reality than the world of physical objects, from which even they spring. In that sense, everything is consciousness, everything is “spirit”, and the various statements of the world’s religions begin to make sense in a greater context than can be found in science. It is this greater context that makes religious statements, even ones that might seem “wrong” on the bare facts, to be true. When Thales declared that “everything is water”, for example, he wasn’t talking about H2O, he was using the traditional metaphor that equates water with consciousness. Likewise, most religious language speaks from a perspective in which consciousness is the primary medium, but understood in a universalist manner. It is concerned with out actual experience of being conscious, of being connected to a living awareness that is greater than our mere bodily life, but which is limited to that while we are alive in the body.

So it’s not just the mode of science, but the very direction of attention that makes it impossible for science to directly study consciousness, as mystics do. Scientists want to objectify what is subjective, and they end up studying the brain, rather than using their own awareness to directly study their actual experience of awareness. That limits severely how far they can go with it.

I don’t pretend The Bible is the only book of deep lyricism and the other texts you mention are certainly profound.

When we talk about fundamental revelation about the world, depends on what world we mean. If we mean that The Bible’s cosmology is taken to be the really objective correct scientific account of the material causation of the world, then yeah big time conflict ensues. But if we hold (as I’m arguing with Bob) that there are also domains of truthfulness and justness (to use Habermas’ terms) then The Bible may (and I believe does) possess a great deal of truth in those domains.

I don’t have a lot of time right now, so for now let be just respond to the above.

Do you really think your lack of understanding, “I just don’t know….” is in anyway helpful? I guess if I just don’t know I’m free to invent any explanation that fits my ignorance. On the other hand a lot of folks have no difficulty reducing “consciousness to materiality.” If you said, “I just don’t know how to preform a face-lift” would it follow that no one knows how to do it?

You are the one invoking supernatural. Does hyphenating it as you do above change the meaning? Wouldn’t a better choice be “beyond” and not “over” nature? But in any case make up your mind. If consciousness is not defined by the supernatural stop invoking that term.