The Narrow Path Ministries

This subject has been really eye-opening to me. This is why atheists think they have the upper-hand. They have extended the empirical method into philosophy, where it doesn't belong. And thus they think that they are the -only- reasonable ones.

When Christianity debates on the grounds of reason/faith, they are usually trying to defend faith as reasonable. And then point out that atheism is itself a faith position. I think it would be more effective this way.

1st. Critique the reason/faith dualism, rather than address it. Reason has limitations in explaining the world. Heisenberg principle points this out. The new physics calls into question the ability to know in the subject/object manner that naturalism depends. When you weaken that, you don't let them have the reason/faith argument.
2nd. Approach both atheism and theism as philosophies. I think we should stop calling them a "religion" or a "faith" just like any other religion. I think we should call them a philosophy, because that's what they are. When we say that they are "religious" just like religions, it doesn't communicate. Just angers them. But dealing with them as a philosophy puts them in the position of using naturalism to defend their philosophy, which it can't.

Just my thoughts... I'm knee-deep in this stuff right now.

These comments reminded me of some quotes I recently found in chapter 5 (on philosophy) of Keener's book "Miracles." It seems he may have some of the same thoughts as you...

"Starting from an assumption agnostic about supernatural activity..."
"The assumption that suprahuman activity is impossible is an interpretive grid..."
"Both worldviews are equally presuppositions"
"A stance critically open to the possibility of miracles allows for the most open-minded stance"
"The reigning paradigm of antisupernaturalism is only a presupposition"
"A limited methodological naturalism interprets phenomena on natural terms when possible... this valuable heuristic tool should not, however, be confused with a thoroughgoing philosophic naturalism that a priori rejects the possibility..."
"Because science's competence addresses physical rather than supernatural causes does not mean that it must declare the latter nonexistent"