Future of Christianity in US

[Esquilax]

Esquilax: what is reality?

That which is demonstrable as objectively real.

The scientists have made the decision for themselves at some time that the Bible is right and is to be trusted along with science.

Which is also not an accurate description of what's happening with the Reasons folks. See, the bible isn't something you trust, because the bible isn't evidence of anything. The bible is a series of claims that can either be verified or disproved by the reality that those claims inhabit. Many of those claims, including the more important ones, have not yet been given the kind of justification one would need to believe in them. Science, by contrast, is a method by which such justifications can be derived; it is not a set of claims in and of itself.

The point I'm trying to make is that ultimately, the bible is subordinate to reality and science. That's not to say it's necessarily untrue, just that it requires reality and potentially the scientific method to be confirmed as true, which is the same thing you'd expect of any truth claim; you read the claim and then, if it's true, you'll be able to find that the real world exclusively conforms to that. The Reasons folks are going precisely the opposite way: they've decided the bible is right, and so the things in reality that don't match with it must be wrong by default. This is why they are not good scientists.

You can't have a "supreme authority," in science. Hell, if you're a rational person at all you must be prepared to drop even your most cherished of beliefs at a moment's notice, to change them in accordance with the evidence. Reality is king, not a book that purports to describe it.

On the other hand some humanists have made the decision that there exists a natural explanation for everything. And so this view will shape the way that they look at origins science.

You're looking at it a bit backwards. You don't start with the view that there exist natural explanations for everything and conduct your science from there. You don't start with any such views. You start with an open mind and allow your observations to guide your views wherever they might lead, regardless of what that is. When you see humanists accepting that things have natural explanations, it's because all we have ever seen, in the entirety of human history, has had a natural explanation. Therefore, the probability of a natural explanation is necessarily greater than for anything else.

Should the scientists back up to the time before they decided to trust the Bible? Can a humanist back up to the time before which he decided that there is a natural explanation for everything? Is that possible? Can anyone truly be intellectually honest?

See above. If the bible is challenged by the evidence, or if the evidence favors a supernatural explanation, that should prompt either side to abandon their previous beliefs and follow the evidence. The sort of creationists that have statements of faith won't do that because they're dishonestly presupposing the truth of their own worldview, but humanists don't do the same thing. Don't mistake a tentative conclusion for a presupposition; after all, we're the ones here asking for evidence against our own interests.

What are the sources of truth by which one can determine reality? Reason? Science?

Reality is the only source of truth. Reason and science are methods by which one can observe that truth.

If there were something supernatural how would one know?

I don't know. I'm waiting for the theists to tell me how they know, without begging the question or falling for logical fallacies.

... Stepping away from Christianity, let's take the example of the show on TV called long island medium. Is this all made up? Is it an elaborate scheme? Is there a natural explanation?

Ever heard of cold reading, or hot reading? If you peel back the glossy veneer Long Island Medium projects, what you see is that there is an easy natural explanation: this supposed psychic is lying. When she's taping her show and has the benefit of time, her staff members interview people in advance and feed her information. When she's forced to perform live, her failure rate is mysteriously much higher. Even former mediums who've given up the act have come forward to explain how she does it using entirely mundane means.

In short: yes, it's all made up. Yes, it's an elaborate scheme, and yes, there is a natural explanation.