yes, thanks, i'm aware of the role of infinity as a concept in theology and science, indeed, i have spent a fair bit of time on it. and, thanks again, i'm very aware of the cultural and aesthetic factors involved in the doing of science. i just don't think that answers the question i'm asking, in the end.
i really think there is a very deep and very important confusion here of religion with values. the fact that we have what putnam calls "epistemological values" (see _the collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays_) does not make those values religious in any meaningful sense of the term "religion" that i can see. that is not to say, and i have never said in this discussion, that religion and science do not impinge on each other. i have only maintained that there is an important difference and that we need to keep the difference straight. failure to do so is what drives most of the conflict between science and religion, imo.
but if we think of science and religion as essentially addressing overlapping (not identical, but not mutually exclusive) sets of concerns in different ways, then much of the conflict here evaporates. the conflict continues mainly, afaict, because so many atheists and religionists want it to continue: the former to destroy religion, the latter to destroy science. this approach seems wrong-headed to me.
gilkey's book, _creationism on trial_ is fantastic on just this question. twenty years old and still required reading, imho.
but, again, i continue to insist on a definition of science and especially of religion, which we seem to be using to mean (a) christianity, (b) religion in general (is there even such a thing?), (c) christian fundamentalism, (d) fundamentalism in general, (e) theistic religion, and (f) the idea that there are limits to knowledge and that those limits force us to acknowledge that there are things we don't know and likely never will know (but can't seem to stop thinking about, anyway -- sorry, miles).
j
ps - [as a post-script, a note on thomas aquinas that didn't really fit above, but which came out of my fingertips as i was typing. for those who might care.]
and for the record, let's not forget that in his time, thomas aquinas was something of a radical. i hate to burst any thomas-was-always-establishment bubbles out there, but in the 13th century there were still many, many people who opposed his adoption of aristotelian science and merging of it with christianity. theses condemned in 1277 include several associated with thomas aquinas. the fact that it *was* establishment by the time galileo and that crew were fighting it as the entrenched, retrograde, scientific-bureaucracy it had become only goes to show that religion can in fact adapt to scientific change, and even fairly quickly. and there really aren't that many christians, any more, who hold to a thomist-aristotelian-ptolemaic cosmography, are there (even if they think god being "up there" actually means something)? and, for the record, aquinas held that the question of the eternity of the world was irresolvable philosophically and that its creation in time was a matter of faith. this is separate from his first mover argument, which is essentially that of aristotle and relies on the "offensiveness" of infinite regress in principle. -- Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead