Hi @GJDS
I would like take you up on this challenge as I cannot help myself but to indulge in any such undertaking. You did say a clear and coherent discussion… right?
For the record, I will state that I consider myself a Christian and not an atheist (in the sense of having no spiritual inclination whatsoever). I will explain what I mean:
We must be epistemologically clear and concise if any coherent and meaningful discussion is to take place therefore, certain points regarding our terms and concepts should be clarified and free from ambiguity. The person who does not believe in “the white haired bearded man in the sky god” depicted by Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam, but holds that the Christ will return from among mankind should be distinguished from the person who does not believe in “the white haired bearded man in the sky god” and who has no spiritual beliefs whatsoever, including any second coming of Christ or the establishment his kingdom. Should the former be also considered an atheist? Or only the latter? What about the Christ… would he be considered an atheist if upon his arrival he claimed that he did not believe in “the white haired bearded man in the sky god” depicted by Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam? What if he stated that he was born of a mother and father like everyone else? In Christian theology God is equally the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Upon his second coming will he be the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Or will he be all three in one? What if he claimed that the Father of the Trinity was Adam, that the Son was Jesus, and that he is the Holy Spirit that has been born into a new man? These distinctions and considerations are important because they provide alternative theories to consider that go to the heart of the matter and distinguish where the different camps stand.
Religion speaks of God, Satan, angels, and demons as spiritual entities that exist in a, so called, spiritual realm. Science opposes any such rationalizations and rejects the existence of these entities and the spiritual realm they are supposed to inhabit. These rationalizations are what turn many people away from spirituality—the conflict between science and religion. This conflict cannot be denied, it is real, but it need not be. For me there is no conflict between science and faith (notice I use the term faith instead of religion) since I oppose and reject any such religious rationalizations such as these entities or the realm that they are supposed to inhabit. My rationalizations are philosophic and scientific, and my faith is in the return of Christ—from amongst mankind—who will bring the last and final judgment upon this world, and the peace and happiness that mankind longs for through his kingdom.
It should be noted that the “deification” of science in the requirement that the Bible be judged by scientific criteria is justified if any essential progress be made in unraveling the Mystery of God. The “god-type” science that you infer atheists have that all religions must submit to would be the justice system—all are accountable to the law. Whether one is a Catholic, a Born Again Christian, a Seventh Day Adventist, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Baptist, a Methodist… all are accountable to the law. The separation of church and state is precisely for this “god-type” science that you refer to that all religions must submit to. At a basic level all religious organizations have the same directives: (1) a description of creation, (2) the teaching of what good and evil is, and (3) faith in a God who will bring a last and final judgment. A precise understanding of the facts of these three points is essential for the Revelation. Thus, it is through the philosophic and scientific treatment of these three points that theological clarity will be achieved. Specifically—the metaphysics, the physical sciences, psychology, criminology, and the judicial systems of the civilized world.
Those who have followed my commentaries can attest that these three points have been the target of all my writings here at BioLogos. I will not elaborate on the details here since it would be intensive and laboriously time consuming to prepare. However, these commentaries give the gist and overall criteria to consider. Six comments beginning here (don’t forget to scroll down to get to the heart of the matter): Fine Tuning and Teleology - #5 by Tony and posts #85686 and #85694 here: http://biologos.org/blog/is-creation-from-nothing-obsolete I also provide links to these three YouTube videos which are pertinent for our present considerations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVpLnB4VyEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROu77TvZzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvQn_bit1qA