Blowing down the House? Part III: Observations of a ‘Neutral’ position against Presuppositional Apologetics

CLICK HERE FOR PART II

A hallmark of Presuppositional Apologetics is it’s claim that their is no such thing as religious neutrality.  Religious neutrality is an impossible position for both the Christian and the Non-Christian.  Christians ought to submit to the Lordship of Christ even in the area of the intellect and apologetics, and failure to do so is an ethical situation between the believer and the Lord. Calling the situation what it is, when believers engage in religious neutrality they are in disobedience to the Lord.

Similarly the nonbeliever can not be religiously neutral either.  Yet some unbelievers in their encounter with Presuppositional Apologetics would fight tooth and nail with much hostility against the Christian faith and still assume that their position is religiously neutral! They do not like the Presuppositional Apologetics stance which openly states that unbelievers have become enemies of God because their sins have made them hostile in every aspect of their being, whether heart, soul and mind.  Some unbelievers would try to argue that prior to their knowledge to Christianity, they were religiously neutral towards Christianity.  Can a position of religious neutrality ever exist?  Let us look at one such atheist who insist he is religiously neutral in light of three statements he made:

“My position is one of neutrality until you offer such an outlandish claim.”

“My position, which is one of a lack of belief in a god, is one I came to at an early age after seeing that people REALLY did believe in gods.”

“I’m in the unique position to have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination and can see that all of these religions have followers who KNOW theirs is the only one true god.”

What are we to make of his statements?  Some observations to note:

1.) The first statement he made was “My position is one of neutrality until you offer such an outlandish claim.” Here he claims that prior to hearing the claims made by Christians, his position was “one of neutrality” before the Christians “offer such an outlandish claim” that God exists.  Yet, what woke him up from his slumber of neutrality?  The claim that God exists, which he finds as an “an outlandish claim”.  Of course the proposition “God exists” is not an outlandish claim to those who are Christians.  Clearly, the Christian and this fellow atheist have different standard of determining what is and is not an “outlandish claim.”  In order for this atheist to rule something as outlandish (in this case, God exists), the standard determining what is and is not an “outlandish claim” has to be assumed first because it is his measuring stick of what is “outlandish.”  Yet this atheist measuring stick (which rules the claim God exists as an “outlandish claim”) is not neutral towards Christianity.  This hostile standard (being not neutral) was assumed by this individual prior to the Christian “offer” of the claim to the atheist that God exists.  Therefore, how can this atheist original position really be neutral to begin with when all along he presupposed a standard that is predisposed towards ruling out the claims of God and Christianity as”outlandish” ?

2.) The second statement further demonstrates how this atheist’s position can not be neutral.  It states, “My position, which is one of a lack of belief in a god, is one I came to at an early age after seeing that people REALLY did believe in gods.” By taking the position that “lack of belief “in God, he has already taken a position contrary to Christianity.  His position is not neutral towards Christianity since it is antithetical towards Christianity: Though he feels that he has a “lack of belief” in God, on the contrary the Bible claims that all people know God and His nature though they suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-21).

3.) Not only is the atheist not religiously neutral as statement two indicates, it is just as important to observe the atheist’s bizarre reasoning. His position is described in his own words  as “a lack of belief in a god.” He himself stated that he arrived at his conclusion “which is one of a lack of belief in a god” was the result of “after seeing that people REALLY did believe in gods.”  One has to ask the question of whether or not “seeing that people REALLY did believe in gods” is really a good reason to conclude “a lack of belief in a god.”  Observing that people “REALLY” (to use his own words and emphasis) do believe in God or “gods” only tells us something sociologically concerning people’s beliefs rather than the ontological status of God Himself.  The guy’s reasoning does not follow.

4.) The reasoning behind the atheist’s second statement is also self-refuting to his position.  For the sake the argument, if one granted the atheist the benefit of the doubt that he “REALLY” does believe in the position he stated, then assuming his twisted reasoning the readers should have “a lack of belief in” the atheist’s position.  This is to illustrate the absurdity of the atheist’s reasoning.

5.) The third statement is another indication of how this atheist’s position is not religiously neutral.  He stated, “I’m in the unique position to have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination and can see that all of these religions have followers who KNOW theirs is the only one true god.” Speaking of his own atheistic position, he writes that he is  “in the unique position” unlike Christianity or other religion of having a better understanding of religion.  Such attitude is the hallmark of arrogance rather than religious neutrality.  He then condescendingly say that he “have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination” assuming that religious followers have.  An air of irreligious superiority is surely not a trait of religious neutrality.

6.) Even with the third statement’s air of superiority, of how the atheist is in an “unique position to have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination,” he seem to import into his thinking the typical indoctrination of other atheists on the internet bragging about Atheism’s intellectual superiority and a self-induced naive dogma more than he realized.  Supposedly as a result of this “unique position”, the atheist has the unique ability to “see that all of these religions have followers who KNOW theirs is the only one true god.”” This atheist has assumed rather naively that only from his vantage point does one realize that various religions have followers who claim to know that it’s only their faith and gods are true.  It is incredibly narrow-minded to think that atheism is the only position to have seen this, after all Christian apologists have witnessed to people of other faiths and encounter those who claim to know their faith is the only true one.  Christians (including this author) recognize this.

CONCLUSION

There is no neutrality with the God of the Bible.  Religious Neutrality is impossible and is really a moral issue since it is a denial of God.  Those who do not acknowledge God who has given so much to His Creatures are sinning when they don’t praise and thank Him.  There is no religiously neutral zone to avoid and hide from God.  Come to Him, and confess your sins.  God has sent Jesus Christ to die for the sins of those who will trust in Him with their lives and believed that God has  resurrected Him on the third Day.

CLICK HERE FOR PART IV