The justification of belief or rejection of belief will be governed by the underlying presuppositions. These are our most basic commitments or assumptions about reality, knowledge and ethics.

Everybody has a worldview, a perspective in terms of which they see everything and understand their perceptions and feelings. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man's knowledge and awareness is interpreted. This worldview is not completely derived from human experience, nor can it be verified or refuted by the procedures of natural science. Not everybody reflects explicitly upon the content of his worldview or is consistent in maintaining it, but everybody has one nonetheless.

A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One's worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs.

We must not think that the unbeliever simply lacks information or needs to be given observational evidence. A person may be so misled by the prejudiced and hostile voices about religion all around him (from the school classroom to the popular media) that he has the unstudied impression that absolutely "no thinking person" sees any credibility to the historical or textural accuracy of the Bible. He may be amazed to find that very competent scientists, historians and other scholars can present thoughtful evidence in favor of Christian claims in science or history. However, in some cases, the resistance of unbelievers to the evidence is more principled and tenacious.

Simple appeals to observational evidence need not be decisive at all. The reason is that a person's presuppositions determine what he will accept as evidence and determine how that evidence will be interpreted.

Naturalism and supernaturalism are conflicting outlooks regarding the world in which we live and man's knowledge of it. The naturalist claims that what is studied by empirical science is all that there is to reality, and that every event can be explained without resorting to forces outside the scope of man's experience as from the supernatural.

"Empiricism" as a school of thought claims that all of man's knowledge is dependent upon experience, observation, or sense perception. This is what we call neo-science. It rejects the dominion mandate given to man at creation in Genesis 1:26. This is what gives legitimate science its theological basis for investigation and discovery.

Christian supernaturalism, on the other hand, believes that there is a transcendent and all-powerful God who can intervene in the universe and perform miracles which cannot be explained by the ordinary principles of man's natural experience. Now then, having well-accredited reports of a "miraculous" event is not in itself sufficient to change the mind of the naturalist - and for good reason. The naturalist's presuppositions will require him to dispute the claim that such an event really occurred, or alternatively, will lead him to say that the event is subject to a natural explanation once we learn more about it. Simple evidence need not dislodge his naturalistic approach to all things. Our presuppositions about the nature of reality and knowledge will control what we accept as evidence and how we view it.

This is evident from the historical narratives recorded in the Bible. The Israelites saw miracles first-hand in the wilderness, but still disbelieved and disobeyed God. The Jewish leaders saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, and responded by plotting to kill Jesus! They paid the soldiers to lie about the Christ’s own resurrection! The Lord has provided plenty of empirical evidence of His veracity, but the way evidence is treated is determined by a person’s more fundamental beliefs. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead” [Luke 16:31].

The Bible teaches us that the mental and spiritual perspectives of believers and unbelievers differ radically from each other. In principle, and according to what they profess, the basic worldviews of the Christian and non-Christian conflict with each other at every point. The all-pervading sinful depravity of the unregenerate man touches his intellect as much as anything else. "The mind of the sinful nature is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be" [Romans 8:7]. Paul's description of the unbelieving mind in Ephesians 4:17-19 is graphic. Unbelievers walk in vanity of mind, with darkened understanding, ignorance and a hardened heart. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" [Rom. 1:22].

On the other hand, believers are said to be transformed by the renewing of their minds [Rom. 12:2; cf. Eph. 4:23-24]. They now have the mind of Christ [1 Cor. 2:16] and bring every thought captive to Him [2 Cor. 10:5]. It is not surprising that believers and unbelievers, with their conflicting worldviews and heart conditions, do not really share a common view of knowledge, logic, evidence, language, or truth. Pilate arrogantly asked, "what is truth?" [John 18:38]. Agrippa differed with Paul over what is "believable" [Acts 26:8]. What unbelievers call "knowledge”, believers shun as "pseudo-knowledge" [1 Tim. 6:20]. What believers call wisdom, unbelievers call foolishness [1 Cor. 1:18-2:5].

[credits to Greg Bahnsen]