The myth of neutrality

Have you ever wondered why two people of equal intelligence can come to diametrically opposite conclusions about a given issue. And whoever you listen to first can seem to have logic completely on their side. Recognizing this phenomenon the Bible tells us “He who states his case first seems right, until his rival comes and cross-examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). Why is this, what is going on here?

The phenomenon just described is nowhere more pronounced than the so called Science/Faith or Faith/Reason debates seen and heard for example on YouTube. I say 'so called' because it seems to me that even the titles of such debates are biased. What I mean is that the very titles themselves seem to pit Science or logic against faith, as if one could only choose either one or the other. But consider this, there are Scientists who are theists and there are scientists who are atheists. And some of the most amazing minds of all time have fallen into the former category including Einstein, Newton, Pascal etc.

In terms of propaganda, the humanist/atheist would have us believe that his or her approach is neutral, whereas the theist approach is based on pure faith. But the humanist/atheist is anything but neutral in his or her approach, and those who present themselves in this way are falling into the fallacy of the myth of neutrality. In fact the only one who has even the possibility of being neutral, is the one who says he or she does not know. But even here, because of the possibility of willing ignorance, neutrality is far from automatic. It is rare to find a person who is even truly open, let alone neutral!

There is much to say about these things, but let me say this: Many of the things that are presented as contradictions in the faith/science, faith/reason debates are based on the philosophy of naturalism. This philosophy contends that only natural explanations of the universe are valid explanations of what is. This is the position of many of the so called militant atheists, in particular it is Richard Dawkins' view. In an interview he was asked what evidence he had for his belief that only natural explanations of the universe are valid, and he had to admit that he had none. As the question itself implies, naturalism is in fact, a belief system. If you hold to this position you can only do so by faith, not by reason.

This is of course denied, and various attempts to validate this and similar positions by reason have been made. But as I pointed out in my blog post “Truth, Bible, Propaganda” February 2011, it is a Mathematical theorem that all such attempts must end up in circular reasoning. The theorem in question is Goedel's incompleteness theorem which essentially says that any non-trivial system cannot verify itself. In particular not only is there no rational verification of the (rational) naturalistic view, but such an explanation cannot even possibly exist! This is because the existence of such an explanation would contradict Goedel's theorem. It follows naturally that every World view (and in particular the naturalistic World view) if it is held to be true, is held to be true by faith not by reason. To say this in terms of the title of the post, there is no World view that is neutral, every World view has an underlying unprovable presupposition that when held reflects the bias of the one holding it. I say more in the two posts "Is Reason is the unique pathway to knowledge?" and "I will not believe in, or accept anything that cannot be verified by one of the five senses!" both posts in July 2012.

That neutrality is a myth does not seem to be well known or understood. As a result many even highly intelligent people seem have no idea that their logic is based on (usually hidden) unprovable presuppositions. Perhaps the biggest challenge for us Christian in debate, is to uncover exactly what are the underlying presuppositions/World views that drive the logic of the one with whom we are in dialogue. The point is that these presuppositions are often hidden, many times even from the one with whom we are debating! Even harder is to discover what are the influences that lie behind the formation of that persons World view. Atheists are fond of attributing theistic world views to geography. I have heard Richard Dawkins say “If you were born in India you would be Hindu.” But by that logic Dawkins would be a Christian. Of course he would reply that he is not a Christian because he is a thinking rational human being (implying that theists are not). Does he think that he is the only one who approaches the issues intelligently? Certainly there are many who do simply adopt the faith of the culture of their environment, but to dismiss it all this way can hardly be described as neutral, and it may lack a certain humility.

To sum all this up let me simply repeat that neutrality is a myth. This being the case, those who think that they are completely neutral and that their position is based solely on rationality, are self deceived. Lack of neutrality of course leads far too easily to bias. But surely the beginning of not being biased is to recognize that neutrality is indeed a myth, and then to try and take ones own bias into account in our thinking and decision making. As I have argued earlier the question then becomes “which view best reflects reality?” (see the series of posts starting with “The Bible has the best explanation of reality” February 2012). I will want to talk later about the fact the arguments discuss here apply also to the concept of moral neutrality, and then to refer back to "The Bible has the best solutions for life" (March 2012).