When speaking with someone of an opposing view (which it seems I frequent either voluntarily or not) we will eventually get to a point of exchanging facts. Facts and evidences that have brought us to our current position. Generally areas I enjoy discussing are the ones that matter. Those of religion, politics and opinions on culture. Seriously, is there much to discuss outside of these areas that really matters? Then why waste time. Honestly when I meet someone and we have our general small talk, I really could care less what they have to say. When we start discussing our world views then they have my total attention. Back to my point.
When we are having a discussion about the facts or evidences of a matter we will come to it with certain presuppositions. That would be certain things we already assume or “pre-suppose” to be true from the beginning. With these certain pre-suppositions I believe (and rightly so) that we ought to focus. Why do you have the presuppositions that you do? Why do I? Specifically, I would be directing this question to the person who holds to a naturalistic view while I admitidly have a super natural view of the world. For the sake of brevity let me get to my point.
In analyzing facts or evidences the real question ought to be “What kind of universal can give the best account of the facts.” Put another way, “Which universal can state or give meaning to any fact?” Can there be more than one “universal” that can five meaning to many facts? The Christian holds that cannot be so. For the Christian there is only one universal. That universal is the triune God of Christianity. The Christian must presuppose that without the triune God of Christianity we cannot interpret even one fact correctly.
Note, the point isn’t that non-theists cannot view facts like the Christian can. The point isn’t that the Christian can always get the analysis of a fact correct. The point is that without God, you cannot interpret anything correctly. The belief or commitment to God isn’t what is being stated here but the fact that without the existence of the triune God facts and evidences would have no intelligible relation to one another. Thus they could not be known by man.
Do not be mistaken to assume that just because the secular sciences are so, that they are in agreement because they are not. Physical sciences seem to have arrived at some definite conclusions about spiritual life. Social science seems to have come to some definite conclusions about the origin and nature of human society, and historical science seems to have come to some definite conclusions about the course of historical events. All however have a common negative attitude toward Christianity among them.
However, if there is disagreement in the results there is agreement in the methodology. However for the Christian it is our contention that upon Christian presuppositions that we can have a sound methodology. So Christianity and science are not opposed but the individuals that use the sciences are. Thus it becomes a battle that is not found in the sciences but in the philosophy of science.