“Theology is like mathematics, not science.”
As someone who loves math, for me, this is where you lost me. Math may be like a language such as Latin in its rules and symbol manipulation, but I see little similarity to theology.
Rather than looking at whether symbolic proof or physical proof is required, what’s important for this discussion regarding math and other sciences is that proof, of some legitimate kind, is required. And, importantly, it’s frowned upon for mathematical proof to contradict the real world, when math is configured to model the real world. Information cycles from other sciences, through math, to other sciences, and back again, which continually improve each. If good real world evidence is contradicted by math, then the assumptions or inputs or choice of formula, etc. are wrong. Mathematicians don’t just bellow that the world is incorrect. They work with scientists to choose or create the math that applies to the situation most appropriately.
I don’t see any similar cooperation with theology and science.
I’m not a scientist, but the evidence available to me as a layperson appears to lead to the most plausible explanation for spirituality being states or processes in the physical brain. This is certainly well within science’s domain, and scientists have an obligation to speak out on this, to the extent they can. If they happen to show that spirituality probably doesn’t lie within the physical brain or body at all, I expect you’d be happy. So let them speak what they have to say.
As for morals and values, I don’t think that is theology’s private domain. That’s one domain of philosophers, more broadly. Before getting to morals and values, theists need to justify their assumptions about the supernatural—the basic “what is there” and “how do we know”, which they answer with larger result sets than atheists. They have not yet made that case to my satisfaction.
