Recently, Michael Gungor, the lead singer of a group that calls themselves a Christian band, made this startling claim:
Do I believe that God literally drowned every living creature 5,000 years ago in a global flood except the ones who were living in a big boat? No, I don’t.
Why don’t I?
Because of science and rational thought.
It sounds like he would rather trust the naturalistic presuppositions of atheists as the ultimate authority over the truth revealed in God’s word.
Despite the obvious scientific evidence of a worldwide flood, he disregards the historicity of the Biblical account because of what he calls science and rational thought. The science is strongly on the side of confirming a worldwide flood. As far as his claim that he can disregard the Biblical account because of rational thought, it is quite irrational to throw away the foundation of logic, reason, and morality in the name of “rational thought.” It is only reasonable to stand strong on the rock of an unchanging foundation: God’s Revealed Word. Astrophysicist, Jason Lisle explains this in detail here:
What is the difference between a rational person and an irrational one? A rational person has a good reason for his or her beliefs. An irrational person does not. But what we have seen above is that only the Christian worldview can allow us to have good reasons for our most basic beliefs – our presuppositions. Apart from the Christian worldview, any reason that we offer for any belief cannot be ultimately justified. It would appear that there are only two options for a person to hold. One can either be a consistent Christian, or one can be irrational.
If Gungor wants to call themselves a Christian band, it makes sense that they would embrace the Bible as God’s revealed word, but if they are going to instead elevate the atheistic presuppositions above scripture, then they should cease calling themselves a Christian band.
ApoloJedi 
all Jason Lisle does is beg the question over and over again, and his “hero” Greg Bahnsen does nothing but make naked assertions
LikeLike
Tony, that sounds all too much like two naked assertions. Can you provide some examples?
LikeLike
well its see now the problem is people like Jason is that he just makes claims like- “my worldview is the only reasonable and logical one”, but fail to back it up with sufficent evidence
LikeLike
Worldviews are not backed up by evidence. Worldviews provide the framework for the way evidence is interpreted.
Having said that, worldviews can be measured to see how rational they are by checking for contradictions and determining how well the worldview describes reality.
When you analyzed your worldview, how well did it do in avoiding contradictions and describing reality?
LikeLike
“Having said that, worldviews can be measured to see how rational they are by checking for contradictions and determining how well the worldview describes reality.”
this is giving evidence to see if your worldview is true, and second of all, both you and Lisle provide no proof that it is the only one that can account for reality
LikeLike
Tell us how your worldview accounts for reality.
LikeLike
could you be a little more specific?
LikeLike
Worldviews tend to answer the questions of life like: Where did everything come from? Why am I here? How should I behave? What happens when I die? These things can’t be proven; you have to setup presuppositions in a framework that helps you interpret the evidence. People tend to interpret the evidence in accordance with their worldview. Since worldviews are mutually exclusive, most of them are going to be filled with contradictions when properly analyzed.
When you test your worldview for contradictions, how many times did you find contradictions? Can your worldview account for the origin of truth, beauty, logic, morality, mathematics, preconditions of intelligibility…?
It would be helpful to know from which worldview you choose to evaluate data.
LikeLike