So be wary of making assumptions about what others are saying, especially if you don't know the speaker.... If in doubt, it's better to ask for an outright clarification of what they're saying rather than to assume you understand what they said.
Both philosophers/theologians and scientists are human beings, and both are just as likely to have opinions formed from their own (limited) knowledge and experience. Both may also have valuable things to say; and they are not necessarily "mutually opposed," but perhaps each represents a complementary view.
The best rule (it seems to me) is to listen to what people have to say, and avoid "attributing motives," or otherwise trying to make one's opponent "look bad" (such as attempting to disqualify one's opponent as not qualified to speak to an issue -- I see that one around here a lot -- or gratuitously redefining his argument in absurd ways).
Here's a great rule of thumb from Victor Davis Hanson:
"In writing opinion journalism ... it’s a good idea to follow two general rules: never gratuitously, maliciously, or unfairly personally attack anyone — and never let a serious attack against yourself go unanswered."At the end of the day it is always possible to disagree yet still be civil in one's disagreement.
Just my two cents worth, tacticalogic. Thank you so much for writing!
I think I've tried to do that. While sometimes it's a conscious effort to not attribute motives to some of the answers, I think in some ways it's more difficult to not attribute motives to failure to answer at all.