The Illusion of Neutrality.

I’ve racked my brain trying to think of some witty cliché to open this column, but I can’t think of one. The fact of the matter is simple, neutrality is simply an illusion. In matters such as scientific study and historical investigation, complete objectivity should be sought out, but is it something we can actualize? In my opinion, objectivity is an illusion. Everyone is biased, and  I think, for the most part, the greater portion of humanity would agree. It’s a simple equation; if everybody is biased, then the propositions stemming from them will likewise be tainted by bias, to some greater or lesser degree. The Christian who reaches to his Bible in search for answers is no less biased than the naturalist who reaches away from the Bible for his.

In meeting with an atheist student group recently, the bias apparent in people was made abundantly clear, even if it was outrightly denied. In one of the points being disputed a certain historian was mentioned…for the sake of keeping focused on the subject at hand specifics will be left out… and no sooner had his name been mentioned, objections were raised immediately before hearing the full question being asked. Right then it should have been evident that certain members of the group weren’t truly listening, but that is another matter entirely. Right away the objector called for a couple of fellow students to look up the reference on the internet to prove the point he was trying to make. It was the response which prompted me to write this column. It went something like this… “they’re all religious sites that come up, so we can’t get to it right now.” In other words, and as the ensuing conversation brought out, I’ll paraphrase it this way; “we can’t trust the religious sites because they have a bias.”

I have to ask, how is this any less biased? A patent dismissal based solely upon the religious nature of the website, wholly apart from reading the content, and denying them a voice on the subject, how is this not biased? If it was based on race, it would be bigotry. Is that not only biased, but also an unjustified bias? If denying a person a voice based on their being a male or female, wouldn’t that be labeled sexism? Would that not be biased? So how is it any less a bias to ignore sources based solely upon their religious conviction that God exists? All of this, however, we were assured was because the atheists strove for objectivity. Whether they were deceiving or being deceived, it is a lie nonetheless.

Beyond this, I know for a fact, that we here on the C.A.R.E. team do our research by looking fully at the arguments made by the skeptics as well as the apologists, and the historians as well as the scientists, and the philosophers as well as the theologians.  We are free to choose which arguments make sense, and leave behind the ones which are weak. We are free to be as objective as is possible, navigating through poor research as well as good research. It appears, however, that the atheist doesn’t have this freedom. In eliminating God at the outset, as is their bias, a whole range of possible, I would argue probable, conclusions are likewise eliminated before any investigation can be made. How can one ever be sure that some of those conclusions are not the true conclusions? As well, how can it be said to be sound research and investigation, a fair weighing of the evidence, if whole pockets of information are disqualified for no good reason prior to the investigation?