Future of Christianity in US

[Mister Agenda]

Esquilax: what is reality?

Dictionaries are free these days, kid:

re·al·i·ty/rēˈalədē/
noun
1.the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2.the state or quality of having existence or substance.

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

Some scientists have, yes. They didn't use the same process to conclude that the Bible is right as they used to conclude science is (mostly) right. They're religious scientists, not scientific religionists.

On the other hand some humanists have made the decision that there exists a natural explanation for everything.

A conclusion that could easily be disproved by demonstrating a single supernatural explanation for anything is actually the case. And most humanists are methodological naturalists, not philosophical naturalists. They haven't decided there's a natural explanation for everything, they just recognize that natural explanations are all science can deal with, sans evidence of the supernatural.

And so this view will shape the way that they look at origins science.

The ONLY proper way to look at 'origins science' is to follow the evidence. If you'd like to propose a better alternative, I'd love to hear it.

Should the scientists back up to the time before they decided to trust the Bible?

Most scientists who are religious avoid mixing their religion with their science. Most scientists who are religious are not creationists. There are more scientists in the relevant fields named Steve or Stephanie than there are scientists in the relevant fields who are creationists. Do you think being a Republican or a Democrat should make a difference when a scientist is on the job?

Can a humanist back up to the time before which he decided that there is a natural explanation for everything? Is that possible?

I'm a humanist, and I still haven't decided there is a natural explanation for everyhing. If it weren't possible, people would never change their minds.

Can anyone truly be intellectually honest?

They can certainly make an honest attempt to be intellectually honest.

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

You want to be careful here. You don't have any 'sources of truth' that we don't have.

Reason? Science? If there were something supernatural how would one know?

Supernatural claims aren't made in a vacuum. They're made about things that exist. For instance, that supernatural forces created existence. The supernatural is supposed to interact with the natural. If it does, there can be evidence. If it doesn't, the supernatural doesn't matter anyway. There are plenty of predictions about what we will find in nature that would be consistent with supernatural activity. So far we've only found in nature what's consistent with natural causes.

... Stepping away from Christianity, let's take the example of the show on TV called long island medium.

Sadly, it is true that this show exists, and on the supposed Learning Channel.

Is this all made up?

Yes.

Is it an elaborate scheme?

Yes.

Is there a natural explanation?

Cold reading and eagerness to believe.