No, although it may seem like that to an outsider, all Christian denominations have a core set of beliefs. I don't believe science will ever come to that point of consensus you described. I believe Christianity converges on core beliefs, belief in the existence of God, belief in the soul, belief in the resurrected Jesus, belief in the sacrifice of Jesus. The Lutheran church is basically a Catholic church without the belief in purgatory or indulgences. Christian churches are synogogues(Greek-"place of meeting") that believe in Jesus. There is no core belief in science, no complete consensus. There are divergences aplenty. In the view of a skeptic, nothing in science should be dogmatized. If not, I'd definitely see it as a religion. There's no real authority in science. In religion, you appeal to a divine authority, and there's core beliefs, even if there may be minor divergences.
I don't mean contradictions between your hypothesis and your conclusion, or your previous test results and your current test results. What I really mean is that scientist A theorizes such and such and scientist B theorizes something completely different. Then another scientist, C, builds on the theories of scientist A, while scientist D builds on the theories of scientist B. Now, scientist D discovers some kind of evidence "which proves beyond a reasonable doubt" that the theories of scientist B are true and that the theories of scientist A are false. But while this transpires, scientist C also finds evidence "which proves beyond a reasonable doubt" that the theories of scientist A are true and that the theories of scientist B are false. So you can only join one of the denominations of that particular theory. It's like a religion of its own.
"Scientist A's theories are joined by C...Scientist B's are joined by D. D finds support for A...while C derives support for B...Gads - what a complicated scenario! Having to whip up something that messy to force them into competing camps seems pointless. In the real world, competing scientists go back to the lab and try again."
There's no need to `whip up' anything messy, since it already exists. My sociology teacher(an atheist) pointed out that scientists are no better in their behavior than religious groups. According to him, they sometimes play dirty tricks on each other and whenever they disagree on something, they just split up into separate departments, and never really resolve the conflict, perhaps even bear grudges against each other. I'm not sure anyone has killed over having their paradigm replaced with another's, but there are certainly heated quarrrels and disputes. Just because you're a scientist doesn't mean you're any better than other human beings. In the `real world,' there was a time when scientists went into two competing camps of geocentric and heliocentric cosmology theories. Things like this may not happen all the time, but sometimes new paradigms often replace paradigms that are the livelihood of certain scientists, thus causing them to be irrationally competitive in order to keep their job or something. There's fierce competition for grant money sometimes. I've even heard of scientists behaving in an uncivilized manner about their disagreements.
Earlier you said that whenever a new discovery or something happens in Christianity, they break off into a new religion. Well these `new religions' are much more consensual than, say, Hinduism's relationship to Christianity. The denomination can say, "Christ is the son of God," and the church the denomination sprung from will say, "Yes, yes. That's true." It may differ on baptism or communion, but it remains consistent with the Christian faith in the important areas. "Christ resurrected," say the Catholics. "Yes, yes," say the Lutherans. "God exists, and his name is Yahweh," say the Catholics. "I agree," say the Jews. People outside Christianity are much further distanced from the religion than those inside it. They cannot even agree on the simplest things. "There is only one God," say the Jews and Christians. "No, there are many," say the Hindus. "The bible is the word of God, and it's infallible, and it's true," say the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholics, etc. "Truth is relative," say the Hindus. In comparison to the outsiders, all denominations(splits in the Christian church) are of smaller distance to the beginnings and foundations of Christianity than other religions. To call denominations `new religions' would be exaggerating the size of the split unnecessarily. What probably confused you were the cults that claim Christianity without agreeing on any of the foundations of Christianity.
"There is absolute consensus in science."
I believe there is a certain aspect of skepticism and materialism that is itself like a religion - it somewhat relies on accepting, believing that certain theories are absolutely true, even if they can't be proven or disproven with the current scientific methods. For instance, when you choose between the Steady State, Big Bang, or Oscillating universe models, that choice is a belief. Neither is provable or disprovable. I find it hard to believe that you are completely neutral on every theory in the same way you are neutral about religion. Back in the old days, scientists got in fights about universe models, whether geocentric or heliocentric. In their day and age, as in ours, such scientists also held the impossible ideal of coming to an absolute consensus. They believed they could prove their theory correct, and the other one wrong. Even if that issue got ironed out in our present era, there still are other issues which are causing wrinkles. Science has to be funded by something. Even if a scientist is incorrect, then, they wouldn't own up to it because their funds would be cut short. You think I'm lying, but people fight tooth and nail over their theories, making them every bit as divisive as religious texts. No one wants to be the owner of a failed paradigm. Eliminate all the grant seekers and publicity hounds and what do you get? Religious people and magazine subscribers!
"It is the politicians and grant - seekers in science who put their egos on the line as well. They are the ones who get in a big snort about everything. Real scientists just want to learn."
Those `real scientists,' as you describe them, are called `college students' or `magazine subscribers.' If you want proper equipment for further scientific learning, and not be an armchair scientist, you need money. Grant money and politics are what you need to dig up dinosaur bones and set up the best experiments. Otherwise, you're just a theoretician working in an office supply store. You also need to publish a book, even if you have nothing worthwhile to say, for the purpose of politics and grant money. And what scientist doesn't go into the field expecting either monetary rewards or recognition or having a planet named after them? I think quite a few minor asteroids have been named that way. "Twister" was just a movie. In real life, there are no `bad guy scientists' in black vans interested in profit alone, nor are there `good guy scientists' interested in only giving selflessly to humankind, unless the scientist is a religious person, which you probably wouldn't consider a true scientist anyway. Most scientists want at least their face in the paper, some kind of reward for their efforts. Only a religious person would be willing and content to toil away for no money, in obscurity. The kind of wooden scientist you are describing exists only in those horrible hard science fiction novels. "I present this technology for the benefit of humankind!" Puh-leeze. Only in the rare instance in which, say, a scientist's son or close relative gets diabetes or something, does the scientist do obscure non-profit work. But that doesn't happen that often. And it doesn't work when you're talking about evolutionary studies, cosmology or other such topics, where most of the fighting I'm describing occurs.
"Whenever there is a disagreement in Christianity, they just break off into a separate religion...But what to religious scholars do? They argue and dispute and fragment into sects with irreconcilable differences of fundamental doctrine."
You are confusing cults with denominations. Cults are organizations that deny core biblical tenets/fundamental doctrines and make up stuff, misquoting the bible, and forcing people to read out of a special bible they have produced. Cults are groups like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science. While there are denominations in the church (Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.), who disagree on the nature of communion and baptism and what have you, they still have a fundamental body of beliefs that they share, because they're all Christian. They can worship together. They believe the bible is true, not a metaphor, real. They believe Jesus is the messiah prophecied in the Old Testament, that he died and rose from the grave physically, that Jesus has power over death, and that Jesus forgave and still forgives people's sins, even today. That he forgives our personal sins. The differences in the doctrines are like the smallest branches on a tree. They diverge a little bit, but they all connect to the same trunk. Christians have a fundamental body of beliefs they all accept. There have been interdenominational camps and worship services, and they worked wonderfully. Martin Luther was only aiming to repair and correct those and other ideas of the Catholic church. He read the same bible as the Catholics, but he noticed things in it they were omitting. He didn't want a "Lutheran Church." In fact, many Lutheran churches call themselves Catholic in the creeds. The Lutheran church is basically catholic. The important parts were preserved.
"Unless the universe itself is unstable, science (leans) toward stability with greater understanding. When something new is discovered, scientists compete for greater understanding and unification. When theologians discover something new, they split into disputing dogmatic sects that drift farther apart."
"...Considering that this is one of the three most important questions in the universe and all time (Does God exist? What does that mean to us now? What does that mean after dying?), one would expect (denominations to have) unanimity on it, if there was any real truth to be had."
This is an unfair judgement, because you have arbitrarily assigned what is considered the `core beliefs' without understanding the Christian viewpoint of such. Here are the standard Christian's core beliefs, beliefs that all biblically literate Christians can all agree on, even if everything else is in debate:
You emphasize the issues of disagreement, like the manner of executing a baptism and the like, which really aren't that important. I belong to an internet group of Christians who have different, but scripturally based conceptions about how one is saved. The evangelical Christians and the like believe that confessing and belief is enough. Lutherans believe that baptism is necessary. But we agree on the five points above. We correct and are corrected with scripture. You make the mistake of thinking that people actually discover something `new' in the bible that causes the sects. In actuality, it's not a discovery, but rather a different interpretation. Martin Luther didn't discover anything new, he just realized an interpretation of the bible that the Catholics had missed. And in the case of Joseph Smith, it's not even that, but a liar's vision becoming a religion.
"Science at least retains uniformity when something changes. When there's a disagreement in a religion, they split off into separate religions, like Christianity split off into Lutheranism, etc."
A cult is, by Christian definition, one that contradicts the five points above. Many times, cults end in events like Jonestown and the Heaven's Gate suicides. A denomination, on the other hand, follows the five points above, and never goes to that extreme. I'm sure that you define a cult by sociological and other means, but according to the Ron Rhodes book, "`Sociological, psychological and journalistic observations sometimes show us the human dynamics that frequently result from a cult belief system, but they are not sufficient Christian foundations for determining a group's status as a cult(Ibid, 21).'" Many cults are self centered. They say that every individual is God, and can define their own rules, their own truth, their own version of reality, that you are in complete control of your life, that you create God, that self knowledge is the meaning of life, that you have unlimited potentual. The ultimate goal of these cults is to make you feel good, and to say things that people want to hear. The ministry of Jesus wasn't like that. Cults try to tell you that you should interpret the bible according to their book, not vice versa, or that you can find the truth within yourself(thus you don't need the bible).
"A story in the news said that the Episcopalians are about to split into two churches because of a gay priest. And Luther split with the Catholics long ago. Yet God does nothing to correct the mess. Does that mean God is an absentee landlord, that he likes dissention, or doesn't exist? In the first two cases, He deserves no respect. In the third, He isnt there to receive it anyway."
How about `none of the above.' Millions of churches worldwide are working on ironing out differences between churches, having interdenominational gatherings and shared church services. The reports of dissent are highly exaggerated. Martin Luther never wanted to have a church named after him. Several Lutheran churches call themselves Catholic, and behave almost exactly like Catholic churches, with only minor differences. I personally have no qualms about worshipping in a Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, non-denominational or Pentecostal church. I won't take communion in some of them, but besides that, I'll join in worship with them, singing hymns and praying and giving alms. The priest, if a practicing homosexual, had no business preaching God's word. His behavior is an affront to God. His church really has no place in God's kingdom if it endorses something that goes directly against biblical mandates. God uses whatever church or religious organization He wants to in order to accomplish his good will. If anyone is dedicated to serving Christ, they cannot be against him. And to avoid any confusion, here are examples of the `against' category: The Crusades, the KKK, `Christian' Nazi prison camp exocutioners, and preachers who advertise behaviors condemned by the very bible they preach from. Still, from the choices listed above, the answer is still `none of the above.' Besides, who are you to tell your creator, "you deserve no respect"? How do you not respect someone who has the power to strike you down at any given moment? After all, isn't a great deal of what we call respect due to fear? What if this `absentee landlord' pops in unexpectedly? Do you want to be caught off guard, unprepared for His arrival? How more dangerous is it for you to have no respect for a God who likes dissent! You don't want to play around with God, no matter what he's like. My point: just because a god has undesirable attributes doesn't mean you can disrespect it.
"Religions are always breaking off into smaller cults. Christianity is no different."
A cult is a religion that doesn't make the bible its core teaching. A denomination, on the other hand, has the bible as its core teaching, it's part of Christianity, but it diverges slightly from the other churches because of its doctrines and traditions. I accept all denominations. But certain Christian - like cult groups misquote and omit things in the bible, so the bible isn't their core teaching. They seem Christian, but they're a cult. One clue is when they treat the bible as literature, and not as the divinely inspired word of God. Or if they've got a special new book they promote along with the bible, which they use to read the bible according to that book instead of vice versa.
Me: "The study of ethics never comes to a consensus because they each are arguing for their own particular lifestyle, and see it unreasonable for other people to impose their own lifestyles upon them."
Agnostic: "A lot of people are dying right now because they don't want someone else's religion and God imposed on them either. Sooo the difference is...?"
I assume you mean Christians who die to extremist Moslem assailants. But atheist ethics debaters are no better. They are trying to have Nogod imposed on them. My point was that these ethics debaters don't want any rules at all. They only want what's best for them, no one else. So they will come to no consensus on it, so ethics will never produce an original, useful and coherent morality that a large group can agree upon. But Christians don't need ethics. They have the example of Christ to follow. We have the authority and direction and we do something with it instead of just arguing about how one is to live a good life, etc.