Neutrality

Some people claim to have no beliefs at all. They declare independence from faith and presumption. They stand on the platform of “no beliefs,” immune to religious bias, seeing no need for a higher authority. They look at religious folk and say, “You have faith, and we have facts. You have religion, and we have science.”      The “no beliefs” people subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism: the view that nature is all that exists. They suppose that we live in a mechanistic cosmos of brute facts and that all true knowledge is based on empirical evidence.      They use David Hume’s fork as a test to validate ideas. Hume described the test this way; pick up any book, a book of theology or philosophy for example, and two simple questions will determine whether it is meaningful:    “let us ask Does it contain any abstract reasoning    concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain    any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact    and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames; for    it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” *       Philosophy professor Sandra LaFave shows how Hume’s fork works, using the statement “God exists.” Is this statement analytic? No. Can it be verified empirically? No. In conclusion, “If no impressions verify or falsify the claim ‘God exists,’ then the claim falls into the nonsense category. This upsets some people.”*      Yes, it does, but Ravi Zacharias isn’t worried. He tells religious people not to be afraid of Hume’s fork, because “the test itself does not pass the test. David Hume's grand statement is neither scientific nor mathematical.”* The test must be assumed apart from facts and logic, so it is self-refuting. We can throw it to the flames.       This is true for any test. A standard such as logic can be used to test and validate ideas, but the standard itself must be assumed. A standard does not prove itself.      The “no beliefs” people assume that faith is blindness. They want to skip over faith and jump into reason and experience, but how can they know that reason and experience are meaningful apart from a belief in ultimate truth? If there were such a thing as a leap of blind faith, this belief in “no beliefs” would be it.      Everyone is religious in this sense; everyone has a system of belief, centered on a concept of ultimate truth. If you do not believe in God, you will replace him with some other authority.      Materialists insist that their viewpoint is different from religious faith. After all, they can see the cosmos with their physical eyes while Christians cannot see God. Yes, we see the cosmos physically, but do we see an unguided self-existent cosmos with our physical eyes? I don’t. That takes faith. Trusting in a self-existent cosmos leads to a very different system of belief, but it shouldn’t be labeled “science.”       If we assume that beliefs are irrational, we are bound to stumble into this idea of no beliefs. As soon as we involve logic and evidence, we will think that we have rid ourselves of belief.

* David Hume, On Human Nature and the Understanding, Anthony Flew, ed. * Sandra LaFave, Notes on Hume, West Valley College. * Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods. Nashville, Tennessee. Tommy Nelson, 2000.