The watchmaker example is an old and tired one that needs some revision as you stated it. I could take a watch apart and find out exactly how it works or I could talk to a watchmaker that is invisible, nobody has ever seen or talked to.

Now you’re mixing worldviews. This is a category confusion.

No it is a classic response from a religious apologist caught in a trap of their own making. If as you say the brain cant be proven to be reliable then it cant be reliable for ANY purpose including that of knowing a God. Its more double standard claptrap where the burden of proof is always for the nonbeliever.

I don’t have to defend the church’s mistakes any more than you have to defend the mistakes of atheists like Stalin.

I don’t have to defend Stalin because he is one man no more than I would ask you to defend Hitler who was a Christian. The church as an organization has a long history of not only not embracing science but doing everything they can to quash it. This directly counters your argument that the bible allows and encourages us to learn all we can about the world around us, and to see it for what it is and use it rightly. Or maybe thats just this weeks interpretation of the bible.

Science is not despite your assertion about presupposition. There may well be things that are not knowable. Science is simply the struggle to find answers without starting with a presupposition.

Your presupposition may be something as simple as what you take for your authority. You take human reason, Christians take the Word of God. or, you might even say you start in “neutral”. Christians don’t. We start under the authority of our Creator to tell us what creation is and what it is for. If you had a watch, you might take it apart and try to figure out how it works, and you might even figure it out to a great extent, but it would be much better to talk to the watchmaker.

You rightly assume that supernatural events have not occurred because every instance where it was assumed that supernatural events were responsible in the past have been proven wrong and science found the answer.

“Science’s” answer to things such as the virgin birth and the resurrection is simply that they did not actually occur. Again, it’s a presupposition.

This is a position Christians like to often take putting the burden of proof on science that they never hold to religion. I say until you can prove that they are not and that even one aspect of god, the supernatural, the virgin birth, resurrection or any other of the mythology is true that your position is utter nonsense. Live up to the standard you set for others.

I am freely admitting that I start by assuming the truthfulness of God and His Word. Starting there I can take the usefulness of the mind and the objective nature of reality for granted, because those are things taken for granted in God’s Word. If I’m trying t “put the burden of proof” on you”, what I am trying to do is get you to make your own worldview account for itself.

On the same hand if that mass of neurons cannot accurately gauge reality then they can also not be trusted to interpret the bible or Gods will or even the existence of God.

Now you’re mixing worldviews. This is a category confusion.

Tell that to those brave men who struggled for centuries to advance science under penalty of death from the church. Tell it to those burned at the stake or hanged for being witches or simply whores. Science has led us to the reason we have now certainly not religion if anything it has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I don’t have to defend the church’s mistakes any more than you have to defend the mistakes of atheists like Stalin.

Science is not despite your assertion about presupposition. There may well be things that are not knowable. Science is simply the struggle to find answers without starting with a presupposition.

Your presupposition may be something as simple as what you take for your authority. You take human reason, Christians take the Word of God. or, you might even say you start in “neutral”. Christians don’t. We start under the authority of our Creator to tell us what creation is and what it is for. If you had a watch, you might take it apart and try to figure out how it works, and you might even figure it out to a great extent, but it would be much better to talk to the watchmaker.

You rightly assume that supernatural events have not occurred because every instance where it was assumed that supernatural events were responsible in the past have been proven wrong and science found the answer.

“Science’s” answer to things such as the virgin birth and the resurrection is simply that they did not actually occur. Again, it’s a presupposition.

This is a position Christians like to often take putting the burden of proof on science that they never hold to religion. I say until you can prove that they are not and that even one aspect of god, the supernatural, the virgin birth, resurrection or any other of the mythology is true that your position is utter nonsense. Live up to the standard you set for others.

I am freely admitting that I start by assuming the truthfulness of God and His Word. Starting there I can take the usefulness of the mind and the objective nature of reality for granted, because those are things taken for granted in God’s Word. If I’m trying t “put the burden of proof” on you”, what I am trying to do is get you to make your own worldview account for itself.

On the same hand if that mass of neurons cannot accurately gauge reality then they can also not be trusted to interpret the bible or Gods will or even the existence of God.

Now you’re mixing worldviews. This is a category confusion.

Tell that to those brave men who struggled for centuries to advance science under penalty of death from the church. Tell it to those burned at the stake or hanged for being witches or simply whores. Science has led us to the reason we have now certainly not religion if anything it has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I don’t have to defend the church’s mistakes any more than you have to defend the mistakes of atheists like Stalin.

until you give an account of why firings of neurons in your brain – a mass of atoms – are meaningful and can accurately gauge reality, your position is internally incoherent and utterly unreasonable.

This is a position Christians like to often take putting the burden of proof on science that they never hold to religion. I say until you can prove that they are not and that even one aspect of god, the supernatural, the virgin birth, resurrection or any other of the mythology is true that your position is utter nonsense. Live up to the standard you set for others.

On the same hand if that mass of neurons cannot accurately gauge reality then they can also not be trusted to interpret the bible or Gods will or even the existence of God.

Anyway you slice it this is a flawed argument.

But certainly the Bible allows and encourages us to learn all we can about the world around us, and to see it for what it is and use it rightly.

Tell that to those brave men who struggled for centuries to advance science under penalty of death from the church. Tell it to those burned at the stake or hanged for being witches or simply whores. Science has led us to the reason we have now certainly not religion if anything it has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

If it were up to religion the earth would still be flat being circled by the sun.

And science doesn’t contain presuppositions or it isn’t science. It is simply that only naturalistic things lend themselves to scientific explanation. I guess it is only natural since they actually exist.

James,
Everyone has presuppositions. You begin the scientific process by assuming that ultimately all truth is testable and discoverable by human reason. You assume your autonomy. You assume that supernatural events have not occurred (hence looking for a natural explanation of everything). You assume that firings of neurons in your brain and the brains of others are objectively meaningful; in fact, until you give an account of why firings of neurons in your brain – a mass of atoms – are meaningful and can accurately gauge reality, your position is internally incoherent and utterly unreasonable.
If you are going to make the scientific method and human reason the ultimate arbiter of truth, you have excluded God from the beginning, because God by definition is Himself the arbiter of truth.
When Adam fell in the garden, he fell because he made himself God’s judge and trusted his autonomy over God’s word and command. When Jesus came through the temptation in the wilderness, He passed because He submitted Himself to God’s Word – each time He replied with “It is written”.

The bible and science are polar opposites.

Only in that science starts with the authority of human reason and the Bible starts with the authority of God. The word of God has to regulate everything, and in that sense they may be “opposites”. But certainly the Bible allows and encourages us to learn all we can about the world around us, and to see it for what it is and use it rightly.

And science doesn’t contain presuppositions or it isn’t science. It is simply that only naturalistic things lend themselves to scientific explanation. I guess it is only natural since they actually exist.

Christians hate science for good reason, it is diametrically opposed to their beliefs.

I’m a Christian and don’t hate science.

And scientific conclusions based on naturalistic presuppositions are opposed to Christian belief, not science itself.

that those of us who doubt the random self-assembly of the universe

Who’s advocating “random self-assembly” of the universe?

England where abortion is on the rise

Oh no, we don’t force our superstitions on others through law, limit access to abortion to poor women, and harass people for deciding what to do with their own bodies! I think England still manages to have less abortions per person than the United States.

England where the second most common male name for newborns is Mohammed

Mohammed (including similar spellings) is an extremely popular name, most other populations in England have more variety in their naming.