> nonreductive physicalism
Here's a very strong argument against nonreductive physicalism, which isn't an argument for reductivism, but phrases it in terms of "a third way". http://people.umass.edu/lrb/files/bak06agaM.pdf
The point must be contended that none of these explanations are satisfying from an understanding perspective as none of them provide any conclusive evidence that any of them are true (where any of them are reductivism, nonreductive physicalism, and the aformentioned "third way"). You're correctly pointing out that choosing between the two is a false dilemma. The choice isn't A OR B, it could be C-Z or something as yet undefined. So, the best claim we can make in that absence of evidence is "we don't know for sure", which is a skeptical viewpoint, and in support of the null hypothesis.
> Religious evidence is meant to be an interpretive construct, not a scientific conclusion
Then it's not evident, it's interpreted. The two concepts are contradictory and mutually exclusive: If something can be interpreted, then it's not evidently evident, it's open to interpretation. If you and I can observe the same phenomena and report entirely different experience, we only have anecdotes and this is not evidence. I could equally intrepret your story to be evidence of Zeus, the God of lightning, and produce equal interpretations which must be valid, about how they got the name wrong... but this doesn't get us any closer to the truth of the matter.
> Faith is certainly as I have defined it
I get what you're saying... according to Wikipedia, faith has 5 definitions:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. the observance of an obligation from loyalty
3. fidelity to a person, promise, engagement
4. a belief not based on proof
5. a particular system of religious belief, such as in which faith is confidence based on some degree of warrant
I'm saying I'm using the 4th definition of the term here. You, I think, may be referring to 1, and/or 5? Yes, I understand that you can use the 5th definition to refer to my understanding, based upon evidence, that the sun will come up tomorrow, and that this is not fact because between then and now the sun may blow up. I get it. But facts are NOT the same as faith, and faith does NOT mean that which is believed upon "reasonable evidence", it's just "a prescribed way of thinking as dictated by religion" which itself has not met the burden of proof in terms of producing a viable method for revealing the truth.
> What available evidence do you have suggesting the impossibility of God speaking from a particular source location?
Good try, shifting the burden of proof. Just because I can't demonstrate something is impossible, that does not demonstrate that is isn't impossible, or that it is possible. You're making a positive claim, namely that god spoke through the bush, and the only evidence I have for it is stories about it. We don't have any good reason to suspect that the entirety of the laws of nature were suspended so that a diety could speak through a bush. All available evidence points at the supernatural, assuming it exists, not making itself evident, so therefore I say I have evidence that the supernatural is a claim without evidence.