You:
I understand your position on this - especially since you are such a veteran of the crevo wars and are on the evo side, you might conclude that the religious would have no problem if only they kept beliefs separate from science. To the contrary, I assert that Spiritual understanding overarches everything to believers and thus trumps all other forms of knowledge. However, as betty boop says, God is author of both revelations: Scriptures and Nature - and therefore, we believers expect them to agree. I have personally never been disappointed.
Yes, but you are a remarkable person. If all Christians had your view of things, then there would truly be no science/religion conflicts. However, even the briefest sojourn in the evolution threads will reveal that the "full blown creationists" regard scripture as an infallible science text. Properly understood, it isn't, as you know, and as many Protestant denominations know, as do the Catholics. For example: Faith can never conflict with reason (The Pope's statement on Galileo and science/scripture conflicts.) An excerpt:
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.So I continue to maintain that I'm justified in keeping knowledge obtained by revelation and faith in a separate category from my "first seven" types of knowledge.
Does historical knowledge fall in this category as well?
And I do understand your frustration with those who would re-interpret scientific "facts" to fit their own doctrine. And the reverse is true as well, those who re-write doctrine to fit their interpretation of scientific "facts".
IMHO, the phenomenon is a reflection of a person's valuation of the certainty of knowledge - and, IMHO, it is important to be aware of it.
Gotta go and do some work. I'll catch y'all later this evening.
Some forty years ago (or so, I can't remember that far back), Anthony Flew gave three criteria for knowledge.
1: One must believe something to be true. (That some woman was a witch for example.)
2: One must have some evidence for such. (Perhaps another person's cow had mange and hers didn't.)
3: The belief must be "true" (or at least in conformance with reality.) This is the hard part; more test may be required; weighing against a duck, for example.
These criteria don't solve problems about how to evaluate claims of knowledge, but they do distinguish knowledge from feelings or guesses (lucky or not.)