There Is No Neutrality

[T]he Christian and the unbeliever do not and cannot approach their differences with argumentative and or philosophical neutrality. Even though the Christian and non-Christian have the facts of the objective world in common, they have radically divergent interpretations of them. For the Christian, all facts are pre-interpreted by God, created by God and revelatory by God; they must be handled in such a way that glory is brought to God. But the non-Christian views these facts as meaningfully interpreted only by his own mind, as uncreated and free from God’s control, as ambiguous and contingent; he uses them to bring glory to man. Hence, the Christian and non-Christian have different interpretative schemes.i

Dr. Bahnsen is spot-on correct in the above quotation and keep that in mind as you read below;

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.ii

And finally, note the wise words of Dr. Jason Lisle on the topic of inconsistent worldviews, as seen above;

If a worldview has internal contradictions, then it cannot be correct since contradictions cannot be true. Moreover, some worldviews lead to the strange consequence that it is impossible to actually know anything. Such a worldview is rationally defective since it would be impossible to know that it is true. So although everyone has an ultimate standard, not all ultimate standards will provide a self-consistent worldview in which knowledge is possible. If a worldview is self-contradictory, or has absurd consequences, then it cannot be correct. As an example, consider the philosophy of relativism. Relativists believe that truth is “relative” — that it varies from person to person. Relativism includes the idea that there are no absolutes. But the proposition that “there are no absolutes” is itself an absolute proposition. Relativists assert that it is absolutely true that truth is not absolute. This is a self-defeating philosophy. If relativism were absolutely true, it would lead to the consequence that it cannot be absolutely true. So, if it were true, it would be false; therefore it is false. As another example, consider the philosophy of empiricism. This is the idea that all knowledge is gained through observation. Now of course I do believe that some knowledge is gained through observation — this is perfectly consistent with Scripture.4 God made our senses to reliably probe the universe, and so there is nothing wrong with empirical methods. But the philosophy of empiricism goes much further than this. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is acquired by observation.5 Or to put it another way, observation is the ultimate standard by which all truth claims are tested. And that I do not believe. I have found, however, that many evolutionists are empiricists. We must eventually ask the empiricist how he knows that “all knowledge is gained through observation.” Clearly this is not something that the empiricist has observed (since knowledge cannot be “seen.”) So then how could anyone possibly know that empiricism itself is true, if all things are indeed known by observation? If empiricism is proved in some way other than through observation, then it refutes itself. If the empiricist’s ultimate standard did happen to be true, the empiricist could never actually know that it is true; he could never prove it. And if a person’s ultimate standard is uncertain, then all his other beliefs (which are based on that standard) are called into question. Empiricism destroys the possibility of actually knowing anything.iii

i Bahnsen, Greg L. Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. McDurmon, Joel (Ed.). Powder Springs, GA. American Vision; Covenant Media Press. 2008: Pg. 89-90.

ii Lewontin, Richard. “Billions and Billions of Demons.” January 9, 1997

iiiLisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Location 422 (Kindle). 2010