Facts and Faith. Mutually exclusive?

I recently have been listening to some prominant theologians who have been helping me to articulate my worldview and my belief as defined. While many would assert that the only rational view to take in todays world is a scientific, facts based view, I have an unction to follow my faith instead. The question that I need to ask myself is this: Is my faith rational and reasonable?
One source which I read was: which was quite articulate and thoughtful. Christian theology cannot be trashed based on foundational beliefs which negate the Bible as a valid source. John MacArthur, another theologian whom I listen to, has basically divided the argument into this: Facts and Faith need not be mutually exclusive, but often they are. To one whom bases belief on facts, the Bible was a flawed treatise on ethics and morality. Humans are basic animals. Life and meaning have purely naturalistic assumptions and defintions. On the other hand, to one whom bases their belief on faith, the Bible is a book about the personality and purpose of God. Humans were created for a divine purpose. Life and meaning are far deeper than any fact or behavioral observation can articulate. Facts can be defined as Faith can be defined as[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-26-2004][This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-26-2004]

There are certain things that I assume: I assume life on earth started by natural process, I assume that the universe however it came to be as it is did so by natural processes.These are assumptions based on my worldview.There are certain things that I do not assume, but know from evidence: the sun will rise tommorow; the sun is the centre of the solar system; when an electrical current is passed through a tungsten filament it will glow; evolution happened.The Christian worldview accepts the reality of the world. Therfore evidence from that world must be admissable or your worldview becomes incoherent.

Not necessarily. The evidence comes from the people of the world. The world is as it is. The people and their behaviors provide the clues.

I don't understand your answer.

My point is that in a rational discussion, the source of the evidence which defines belief and/or rationality is found in the people(faith,ideas) and not the world around them(facts) The people have defined the facts through their faith. I can say to you that God is a fact. You cannot verify my fact. Are you going to look for the fact in the world, or are you going to look for the fact in my character? Are you saying then that matter beget matter? Is your faith based in matter? My counterpoint asserts that faith is based in ideas. Personalities. Rationalities. Not necessarily in the matter of the stars. It is found in the personality beyond the stars.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-26-2004]

Do you not think there are facts in the world that we can both agree on? If I show you a rock, is that not a fact to you?

we can agree that a rock is a rock. That brings up a line that was in the play, "Inherit The Wind". The ill prepared evangelist was cornered by his Darwinian legal opponent. Finally, he blurted out, "I am more interested in the Rock of Ages than I am in the age of rocks!" It was a funny line! I guess, Mr. Jack, that I am saying that some people begin with an origin of matter. Others begin with an origin of Spirit. Which came first: Creation or the Creator?
One side says that the universe came about naturally. That man invented the concept of a Creator. The other side would assert that the universe came about supernaturally. That Spirit created matter.
This is how I frame the issue.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-26-2004]