The Myth of Neutrality

Why is this important? Dr. Bahnsen says we cannot naively assume that people embrace an epistemology with neutrality toward the nature of reality. He presents the "apple orchard illustration" in which an apple grower tries to create a machine to sort good apples from bad apples. The machine could be considered a sort of method, similar to a person's epistemology -- the method of arriving at knowledge. How would the machine's creator program it to recognize and sort a good apple from a bad apple if the creator did not first have a notion about good and bad apples? In other words, people have ideas about ethics and metaphysics as they embrace an epistemology.

Dr. Bahnsen's purpose is to once again refute the notion of neutrality. Epistemology is not neutral. A person arrives at an epistemology that integrates within his worldview, including his ideas about ethics and metaphysics. We should not give in to the unbelievers' cry for neutrality, as they are not neutral with respect to ethics and metaphysics. There is no unifying method of epistemology that we all share in common. If we are metaphysical materialists, we will embrace empiricism; if we are idealists, we will become rationalists. For the Christian, of course, we have a revelation-oriented epistemology because we believe that God is the Creator and sustainer of reality and the source of all true knowledge and understanding.

From the start, therefore, Dr. Bahnsen rejects philosophical "methodism."

Secondly, Dr. Bahnsen makes the important point that worldviews tend to be self-verifying. What does this mean? No argument can run on and on indefinitely. It must have a starting point and final court of appeal -- an ultimate standard, in other words. When a person says, "This is true just because it has to be true," they have reached their highest standard for authority. For the believer, God is the self-attesting, self-verifying authority to which no higher appeal can be made. We cannot say, "God exists because it just makes sense; it is logical." If we do this, we place logic even above His authority and existence. Thus, everyone has a final court of appeal to which no higher appeal can be made.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen believes that the way of epistemology is not neutral. This is how I think people should believe. Those who think God does not exist are those who cannot accept that there is a higher form. Maybe someday they can realize that impossibility does not fit well with humans and on how we believe in things.