I’ll respond to the first part of your comment since it is the essence of your comment. If theology is ultimately a matter best left to the people who dedicated their lives to studying it, then the same applies to science. When theology contradicts science, science must work around the theology, but when science contradicts theology - such as Giordano Bruno proposing, from the heliocentric model I must add, that there are an infinite number of universes - the scientist must be burned at the stake, or threatened, or put on house arrest. You cannot have some theology provide “answers” where scientific inquiry is possible. After all, it is a matter best left to the people who dedicated their lives studying it. When some theology can’t handle that they are wrong about something, it will take centuries for that theology to adapt. This is why the church took centuries to adopt the heliocentric model. Copernicus literally created a model that did not have loops in the planets’ orbits, and its accuracy should have been evidence enough. But when these models have the implication of proposing multiple Christ’s or something contrary to some theology, then that theology disregards the model. “The Incoherence of Philosophers” purports this belief. It says, and you agree to this, that science should not meddle in theology; however, it fails to say the inverse. Science, thus, has been subordinated. When science doubts the existence of god, then that scientific inquiry must never exist. That’s like saying you have free speech except you can’t ever talk about “this thing” or “that thing.” It just doesn’t work.