Identifying Hidden Biases

Hey, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today we're diving into an important topic in apologetics, the myth of neutrality. Now, if you're familiar with presuppositional apologetics, if you're currently studying presuppositional apologetics, the idea that neutrality is a myth is going to be something that is quite familiar to you.

It is often referred to in the writings of Dr. Bonson, in the writings of Cornelius Mantel, and other presuppositionalists, this idea of the myth of neutrality is a pretty popular concept. But in this video, I want to kind of dive a little deeper into what that's all about and how to identify attempts at neutrality so that we could avoid it in our own thinking, and we can point it out in others in terms of the attempts to be neutral.

We can point out that that's actually not possible, and here's why. And this is going to be very useful in terms of the apologetic context, okay? So in this episode, I'm going to define the concept, I'm going to explain why neutrality isn't possible, and then I'm going to show you how this plays out in real-world apologetic encounters.

So here's the plan, okay? Just lay it out here from the beginning. First, I'm going to explain what neutrality is supposed to be and why so many people think it's actually an achievable position, and then I'm going to demonstrate why it's actually a myth by exposing the underlying assumptions that people bring to the table, even when they claim to be neutral and objective.

And then I'm also going to give you some concrete examples where neutrality is attempted, but falls apart under closer scrutiny and analysis. Now, my goal here in this video is to equip you, as an apologist, to avoid thinking in so-called neutral categories.

You want to avoid this kind of thinking in yourself, and you want to be able to recognize it when the unbeliever is trying to smuggle neutrality into the conversation. Now, I don't mean to use the word smuggle in a pejorative sense.

I know that it can come across that way. The assumption of neutrality is often done either intentionally or unintentionally. Not everyone is aware of their presuppositions. A lot of people think that engaging in neutral, quote-unquote, objective lines of reasoning and discussion and debate and dispute is kind of just the default position.

We all are just kind of looking to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but that's actually not possible, and we're going to break that down in this video. We're going to be digging into this at both a theological and practical level, and so I'm also going to give you the biblical basis for why neutrality is a myth, and then we'll walk through how to identify and dismantle false claims of neutrality during apologetic interactions.

And so hopefully by the end of this episode, you'll have the tools to think critically and engage unbelievers at a deeper worldview level, exposing the hidden biases and presuppositions behind their claims, okay?

So whether you're just getting started in apologetics, or you're just starting your study in presuppositional apologetics, or you've been engaging with unbelievers for years, this is, I think, a very important topic that will help you refine your approach and will be very useful to you.

So where do we begin? Well, we begin where we always begin, and that is with defining our terms. So let's begin with definitions. When we speak of a neutral approach, we're referring to the idea that someone can engage in a dispute or disagreement, such as debate, you know, a debate between a believer and an unbeliever, with a no-one-knows-as-of-yet kind of mentality, right?

And this position suggests that both parties can cast aside their biases and simply, and you hear this phrase often in apologetics and debates, follow the evidence wherever it leads, okay? And you know, this gives the impression of objectivity.

It gives the impression that, you know, we're not, you know, just simply begging the question in favor of one position over the other, so on and so forth, okay? And that sounds really good at a surface level, okay?

A good example of this kind of mindset can be found in the debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and the late Christopher Hitchens. Now, Dr. Craig is a classical apologist, and from a purely debate perspective, I think he did an excellent job dismantling Christopher Hitchens' arguments and points, not that he gave any sophisticated arguments at all in my estimation, but I think Dr. Craig did a great job in that debate, and I'd even argue that many atheists would probably agree with that.

But nevertheless, there's something that Dr. Craig said at the beginning of that debate that I think illustrates the assumption of neutrality. And he stated, and this is a close to a direct quote, he says, if I know Biola students, I know that they've left their bias at the door and are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

He said something like that, okay? Now, this video is not a critique of Dr. William Lane Craig, which obviously I have huge disagreements with him theologically and philosophically, but I do acknowledge that he is an excellent philosopher, and he has done a great job in terms of providing useful resources to Christian philosophers and apologists through his debates and various lectures and so forth.

But of course, I have some great disagreement with him on a great variety of topics. The goal here is not to express those things or to demean Dr. Craig, of whose work I've benefited greatly, even though I've had great points of disagreement, okay?

The issue is that a statement like this, that we're to leave our bias outside and follow the evidence wherever it leads, this statement assumes the possibility or suggests that we ought to pursue the role of neutral observer, right?

It assumes that we can be neutral observers of the various arguments and contentions being put forth in the context of the interaction between the believer and the unbeliever. Namely, that it is possible that we can set aside our biases and objectively follow the evidence.

Now again, at first glance, that sounds like an admirable intellectual pursuit, right? But is it truly neutral? Can we successfully do that, right? Let's consider this from a different angle. Historians often claim they strive for objectivity in their work, and while they may acknowledge that complete neutrality is impossible, they'll still say, right, you hear this in various contexts, we need to try our best to look at history objectively.

Now what's happening here is that lip service, and I'm not saying this as an insult or whatever, I mean, this kind of is part of the air that we breathe philosophically and historically and so forth, but what's happening here is that lip service is being paid to neutrality while implicitly admitting that it can't be fully achieved, right?

And this reality must be taken into account when we discuss why neutrality is a myth. People will say, you can't be completely objective, but we need to try to approach this from a, and then, you know, the next line they say would suggest that we need to be as neutral as possible, but then admit that it's impossible to be fully neutral.

Well, which is it, right? Can we be neutral in the investigation of history or not? Can we be neutral in the analysis of worldview perspectives or not? Okay, it's important. Now, so I think that's an interesting kind of thing to recognize when you hear a lot of people say these sorts of things.

Now, why should Christians reject neutrality? Okay, and I'm speaking from my perspective. By the way, there are people who do not identify as presuppositional apologists who reject the possibility of neutrality, and that's a different topic, but the issue is at that point whether they are doing so consistently.

I've spoken to classical apologists who tell me flat-out, well, I don't believe it's possible to be neutral. And then, of course, the way they interact with the unbeliever, the categories of neutrality are allowed to slip in whether knowingly or unknowingly.

I mean, it depends who you speak with, but again, there's a broader discussion to be had there. But nevertheless, why should Christians reject neutrality? And I'm gonna jump into two primary reasons why Christians ought to reject the concept of neutrality.

But before we do that, I'm going to have a sip of my coffee. This is going to be my elixir that will help me get through this video.

We need to talk. It's been a rough ride from a culture bent on burning itself down to attacks from within. But by the grace of God, we've been given a moment, a chance to make lasting changes. We can rebuild what's been torn down, but we have to build with what will last, the gospel of the kingdom.

This April, let's sit down. Let's talk about what matters. And together, we'll build something that lasts. ReformCon 2025. Tickets are limited. Lord willing, we'll see you in Tucson.

I'm super excited. My wife just got me this kind of coffee cup here. Nice and slim, can keep it on hand for my long videos and allows me to recharge if I'm dozing off while I'm talking. Sometimes I can get tired when I'm talking, much less listening to someone else.

But nevertheless, why should Christians reject neutrality? Now, there are two primary reasons. Number one, I think the concept of neutrality and the attempt to be neutral in our reasoning and our thinking and so forth is unbiblical.

OK, and so first and foremost, adopting a neutral intellectual posture is, I think, contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Jesus himself declared that no one is neutral. In Matthew chapter 12, verse 30, Jesus says, whoever is not with me is against me and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

And so I think it's clear that there is no middle ground when it comes to our stance towards Christ. You are either for him or you are against him. You see, the commitment God calls us to have is an all encompassing commitment.

As Scripture says, for from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. That's Romans 11, 36. Now think about it for from him and through him and to him are all things.

And this all things includes every aspect of our reasoning. OK, every aspect of our argumentation, our worldviews. And so as believers, we are called to submit every thought to the lordship of Christ, as is told us in second Corinthians 10, five, where the apostle Paul says that we destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised up against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

And so for the believer, there's no such thing as neutral reasoning or neutral or confronting the facts in a neutral fashion. Our thinking as Christians must be grounded in God's revelation and defined by his truth, how he's defined his own creation.

And so to even entertain the idea of neutrality, I think, is to deny implicitly the lordship of the triune God over our reasoning and intellectual pursuits. OK, and so I think that this is something that we need to be careful not to engage in.

And trust me, it can be tempting when you're disputing with people who think in those categories quite regularly and it's just kind of the normal thing. It's kind of the air that they breathe, so to speak.

Now, in like manner, the unbeliever and this is so important, the unbeliever himself or herself is not neutral. Right. They, too, have an ultimate authority or Bible, if you will. OK, for the unbeliever, this might be a philosophical system such as, you know, empiricism, some form of rationalism, existentialism or another worldview that dictates and controls how they interpret reality.

You see, even the atheist or agnostics have a fundamental commitment that serves as their interpretive authority. It could be, I don't know, the assumption of naturalism, the belief in human autonomy.

Or, you know, some other presupposition. OK, everyone has an authority. So this is not unique to, you know, the Christian. I think it's very fascinating when presuppositionalists often interact with the skeptic.

The skeptic can sometimes think that it's a pretty slick move to go presuppositional on the presuppositionalist. Well, well, I'm going to presuppose these things and I'm going to use their argument against them.

That's not a slick move. That's that's actually just expressing the fact that at heart, at least this is my position, and I think this is this is true at heart. Everyone's a presuppositionalist in the sense that everyone has presuppositions that govern how they interpret and make sense out of facts and so forth.

OK, every position that someone holds, OK, is going to have some authority behind it. OK, whether it's the triune God in his revelation or it is, you know, the primacy of some philosophical construct or whatever the case may be, everyone has, you know, some kind of authoritative grid, I would say grid, an authoritative foundation that informs everything else.

OK, but in reality, it's because of that that there really is no neutrality. For example, when an unbeliever claims to just follow the evidence, they're not approaching the facts neutrally. OK, that sounds like they are, but in reality, they're not.

As you think about it, even the idea that there are, you know, something like what we might refer to in philosophy as brute facts, namely facts that are simply self-evident and they require no interpretation, it is itself a non-neutral stance.

So to claim that there are certain brute facts, these certain like factual givens, OK, that itself is not a neutral position to hold. OK, to assert the existence of brute facts is to presuppose a view of reality that denies the biblical claim that all facts are created and interpreted by God.

OK, in other words, the claim of brute factuality is biased against the position that argues brute facts are impossible. Isn't that right? From the Christian perspective, we encounter the facts of human experience, and those facts are pre-interpreted.

They are pre-interpreted because, from within the Christian worldview, God created the facts and gives the facts definition. And that objective definition that the creator gives to those facts are the true and genuine, proper understanding of what those things are.

And so the Christian seeks to interpret the facts of their experience in light of how God has defined those facts, defined those categories. It is for the Christian to, quote, think God's thoughts after him.

Now, of course, the unbeliever is going to be like, well, I don't believe in your God, and therefore I don't believe in how your God, you know, defines it. That's fine. That's not what I'm getting at here.

The fact is, if I'm going to be a consistent Christian who believes that God created the facts and interprets the facts, I'm going to have to seek to think God's thoughts after him. And in order to properly understand the facts, I need to define them in a way that God has revealed what those things are.

OK, in like fashion, the unbeliever is not neutral. They're going to define the facts in light of their ultimate presuppositions. OK, and so as presuppositional apologists, we need to recognize that no one approaches arguments or evidence with a blank slate, right?

The believer submits to God's revelation, right, recognizing that all reasoning is ultimately accountable to him. The unbeliever, on the other hand, according to Scripture, suppresses this truth in unrighteousness and interprets reality through a lens that excludes God.

OK, and this is true even when they say, well, I'm open to God's existence. I don't I don't believe in him now, but I'm open to if I just even that position. OK, is assuming categories that implicitly would require the biblical revelation to be false.

OK, and so the myth of neutrality is is just that it's it's a myth. There is no neutral ground. And as believers, again, we're called to stand firmly on the foundation of God's word while exposing the biases and presuppositions of the unbeliever.

OK, in the end, our reasoning, our arguments and our conclusions must all flow from the truth of the triune God, who is the source and sustainer of all things. And so the Christian ought not be neutral for two primary reasons.

First, pardon, neutrality is unbiblical. And second, neutrality is a myth. It's an illusion. It's impossible. So let me give you an example to illustrate this. OK, and I'll give you I'll give you an example from a previous video that I had made.

There was a comment made that kind of expresses the point that I want to get to here. So just give me a moment here. Dr. Greg Bonson was a renowned Christian apologist, philosopher and seminary professor, and his life's work is now at your fingertips with Bonson U.

Bonson U aims to bring seminary level education to every Christian anytime, anywhere, absolutely free. Gain access to over 140 courses covering theology, apologetics, eschatology and law, featuring sermons, seminary lectures and more from the legendary Dr. Greg Bonson.

Now, if you sign up today at Apologyastudios .com and join over 13000 users already benefiting from this incredible resource, you will not regret it. And soon they're expanding with Bonson U Plus and Bonson U Live, bringing fresh supplemental learning and real time engagement.

Again, go to Apologyastudios .com and start your journey today. All right, and so in a previous video, I was talking a little bit about Christian philosophy, okay, how the Christian should do philosophy.

And I said that a Christian philosophy must be guarded by the parameters of scripture, okay? And so someone commented, I assume that this person is either an atheist or a skeptic or something, commented on that video and quoted me saying this, right?

If your philosophy is guided by the guardrails of scripture, you know, this is how we should do philosophy as Christians, that when I'm philosophizing and speculating, the guardrails of scripture create the standards of what kinds of conclusions that I can draw, okay?

Because if the Bible is my ultimate authority, if God and his revelation are my ultimate authority, my speculations ought not go contrary to those guardrails, to those standards. And so the person here said, quote, if your philosophy is guided by the guardrails of scripture, then it's not real philosophy.

That's what the person said. Now, why would they say that? I want you to think about that in light of what I've just been talking about here, okay? So if I say that a Christian philosophy, if we're going to speculate and we're going to philosophize, that that process must be done within the context of the guardrails of scripture, that that's not real philosophy.

Why would someone say that? What's wrong in this view, okay?

All right?

What's wrong? Think about it. What's wrong with engaging in philosophical reflection that is defined and guided by biblical revelation? Well, their reasoning is that, quote, real philosophy is supposedly objective, neutral, and open to all possibilities.

But here's the issue, okay? And hopefully you get this by now. There's no such thing as neutral philosophy. Christian philosophy is indeed philosophy. It's just not a neutral philosophy. It isn't trying to be, okay?

When someone argues that real philosophy cannot be done within the boundaries of scripture, they're expressing what? They're expressing their own philosophy, one that is inherently biased and non-neutral against a Christian worldview that submits to the authority of God's revelation.

And so this critique of Christian philosophy, as I've outlined it, actually exemplifies the myth of neutrality. Think about it. Every time we assert, based on scripture, that God is the foundation that gives meaning to everything, that all facts are ultimately understood in light of the creator, okay?

And someone responds by saying, well, you know, I could know that one plus one equals two. I could know that without your God. When someone asserts that, they're not being neutral. Isn't that right? What they're really saying is that the Christian perspective is wrong and that God is unnecessary for the intelligibility of basic truths like mathematical equations or whatever you want to use as an example.

Okay?

Now, maybe the unbeliever is right. Now, of course, I don't believe he's right. And I don't think, obviously, I'm arguing, I'm coming from a consistent presuppositional perspective. I'm not granting that the unbeliever might be right necessarily in this regard.

But let's suppose they were right, okay? I think they're wrong, but that's not the point here. The point is that such a claim already presupposes a worldview, one in which God is not the necessary foundation for truth and intelligibility.

And that assumption needs to be demonstrated. That's the whole point of contention, right? The Christian asserts that God is the necessary precondition and is willing to argue for it. And when the unbeliever asserts implicitly or explicitly that God is not necessarily that foundation, that is where the nature of the dispute is going to take place, okay?

As a Christian, I admit I have presuppositions and bias. The unbeliever will often suggest that they have their own biases too. But then there are others who just don't see that they have a bias. One person I heard say, I don't have any presuppositions.

Yeah, you do. Yes, you do have presuppositions. Everyone has presuppositions. It's unavoidable. And so both the Christian and the unbeliever, I think when you're arguing at the paradigmatic level, the worldview level, there is a certain level of burden of proof for both the proponents of the discussion, the debate, the dialogue, okay?

When you're discussing issues at this fundamental foundational level, okay? When we're speaking at the paradigmatic level, we're debating the fundamental frameworks that make sense out of reality. In that sense, there's going to be a certain level of burden of proof on either side, okay?

Now, when the unbeliever says, well, you need to look at this from a neutral objective perspective, they're already exemplifying that bias, right? They're assuming their perspective is the default position, right?

And that they are often unaware, okay, of this bias, okay? But here's the thing. What someone considers a default position is not neutral if it directly conflicts with another perspective. And so, for example, the Christian worldview explicitly denies the so-called neutral position exists.

We don't believe it's possible. So this is important. So to assert a supposedly neutral default position is itself a rejection of the Christian worldview. You see? So neutrality is impossible. No one approaches the question of God's existence or worldview categories in a neutral fashion.

Everyone brings presuppositions to the table, whether they acknowledge it or not, right? This is why Christians need to reject the myth of neutrality and stand firmly on the foundation of God's Word, okay?

So let's kind of consider this with specific examples here to kind of illustrate this point here, okay? So let's consider the position of atheism. Now, for the sake of illustration, I'm going to take a standard definition of atheism.

You know, I understand that atheists define their position in different ways. You know, there's the belief that there is no God or a lack belief. You know, that's not the point of what I'm getting at.

The point is not the definition specifically. But just giving an example, okay, of the non-neutral nature of an atheistic position, okay? So if I were to take the claim that atheism is, you know, if you're an atheist, you're someone who does not believe that God exists.

Okay, we'll take that view. I know there's different views. That's not the point here, okay? Now, again, if someone says, I don't believe God exists, okay? I want you to think about this. That position is obviously not a neutral position.

Why?

Because if you don't believe God exists, you're implicitly assuming that God is not necessary for the intelligibility of human experience, okay? And so by denying God's existence, you are also denying the Christian worldview's claim that God is the necessary foundation for all knowledge, rationality, and intelligibility.

And so you may not say this outright, okay, but it's an inherent assumption of the atheistic position that life, knowledge, and reason can get along just fine without God. Atheists don't claim to have the answers to everything, but at a minimum, they don't see the necessity of God for intelligible experience necessarily, okay?

And if you do have atheists who say, well, okay, you know, maybe God is necessary for this, but I need to have it demonstrated. Well, demonstration, right? The request for demonstration already assumes that there are categories that can already be made sense out of, okay?

Apart from acknowledging God is the foundation, right? And so asking to prove it, okay, already assumes that it's not necessarily necessary because you're assuming the intelligibility of the very request itself.

And so again, this is an implicit rejection of the Christian worldview, which asserts that God is necessary for these things. And when an atheist says, you know, I don't believe God exists, they're also implicitly saying that the Bible specifically is incorrect in its claim that all men know God to some degree, okay?

And we often use, you know, Romans 1, verses 18 through 21, or the concept of the Imago Dei and the census divinitatis, and that, you know, man has a knowledge of God. This is grounded in Scripture. When someone says, I don't believe that God exists, or I don't know that God exists, think.

About it.

That is an implicit rejection of the biblical claim that all men do have a knowledge of God such that they are without excuse. Now, this is important here. I'm not saying at this point that Christianity is right and non-Christian positions are wrong.

That's not the point of this video per se. The point is simply to point out that atheism, whatever flavor it happens to come, whether it's lack-beliefism or God does not exist, if it's strong atheist, weak, whatever, that's not the point here.

The point is to point out that any of those positions, regardless of how you define your atheism, okay, is not a neutral position. And the same would, in fact, apply to various forms of agnosticism, okay?

If someone were to say, I don't know if God exists, all right?

Pardon?

I don't know if God exists. That's not a neutral position, okay? Some tend to think, well, the agnostic, surely the agnostic doesn't know. And so, you know, maybe they're open to the evidence. It really depends on what kind of agnostic you're talking about.

You do have agnostics who would say, I don't know if God exists, but neither do you. No one could know, right? The idea of the transcendent is, in fact, unknowable. You do have that kind of agnosticism.

And then you have the agnostic who says, well, I don't know if God exists, but, you know, I'm open to the evidence, right? You have different kind of weaker forms of agnosticism and strong forms of agnosticism or whatever.

But when someone claims, I don't know that God exists, the God of the Bible, that is, that is an implicit rejection of the biblical claim that all men have a knowledge of God,.

Okay?

And this is what the scriptures teach. You don't have to believe it to be true, but to assert that it's not true or you don't know, that position is not a neutral position. And so even the agnostics, I don't know, okay, is an implicit denial of what scripture teaches about the knowledge of God.

And so whether atheism, agnosticism, or Christianity is correct, the fact remains, neither atheism nor agnosticism, nor Christianity, nor Islam, nor Mormonism, nor the Jehovah's Witness, nor Buddhism, nor Hinduism is neutral, right?

That's the point of what I'm getting at here, okay? And so the principle applies to any assertion, any position, any proposition that is contrary to the Christian worldview. Anytime someone makes a claim that explicitly or implicitly rejects the fundamental framework of the Christian worldview, they're adopting a non-neutral posture toward the issue, okay?

I hope that makes sense. Now, what I want to do is return briefly to this idea of brute facts, the brute factuality,.

Okay?

And so brute factuality is often described as the notion that certain facts are self-evident and that they exist independently of interpretation and are free from any worldview assumptions. And in this view, facts are just there.

They're uncolored by presuppositions. These are kind of givens. Now, before I kind of share my thoughts here, you have to recognize that philosophically this is not the case at all. I mean, you take a look at the different flavors of rationalism, where in terms of which the rationalist will start with clear and distinct ideas and then move from there, in some cases by logical deduction, to come to certain conclusions.

And then you have different rationalists arguing over what those clear and distinct starting points are. And then, of course, they draw different conclusions. I'm thinking someone like René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza and other rationalists,.

Okay?

They drew different conclusions and had different conceptions of what were the first, the clear and distinct starting points, okay? That's not to criticize them per se. The point is that what one sees as clear and distinct, right, and obvious is not always the case.

This is borne out in the history of philosophy, and of course it's borne out in everyday, in our day-to-day experience, right? When the atheist says, well, that's obvious that that's not the case, well, what you consider obvious or, you know, common sense is itself worldview dependent, right?

What you deem as possible or impossible is a reflection of your worldview, your specific metaphysical commitment. See, when you talk about metaphysics and you ask questions about the nature of reality, that involves discussions of what one thinks is possible or impossible, okay?

I think Cornelius Van Til was correct when he pointed out that there are no brute facts. He actually famously said that brute facts are mute facts, okay? Brute facts are mute facts. In other words, facts do not speak for themselves.

They need to be interpreted, and interpretation always occurs within the context of a worldview,.

Right?

There is no such thing as a naked fact, okay, free from all presuppositions. All facts are understood and explained within the framework of an entire paradigm, an entire worldview. And so, for example, you know, the Christian asserts that all facts are created and sustained by God and therefore find their ultimate meaning in Him.

To deny this, whether explicitly or implicitly, is to interpret facts within a non-Christian framework, which is itself not neutral. And so the idea of brute factuality, the claim that some facts exist independently of God or apart from a worldview, is itself a myth.

Brute facts do not exist because all facts are interpreted facts, okay? Very, very important to keep in mind, all right? Now, you can give examples like, but what about this? Isn't this a self-evident truth?

No, it's just to reassert the possibility of brute facts. Again, everything needs to be interpreted in some way, shape, or form. Now, the key point here is that no one approaches the question about God, about the nature of reality or the meaning of facts from a neutral position.

Every person comes to these issues, again, as I said, with presuppositions which shape their worldview. And so the myth of neutrality insists that someone could set aside their biases and evaluate facts objectively.

But again, this simply is not true. Neutrality is an illusion, whether in atheism, agnosticism, or any other worldview. Christians, therefore, okay, I'm talking Christians here, must reject the idea of neutrality and firmly root their reasoning in the truth of God's word, okay?

In the truth of God's revelation, recognizing that all facts, knowledge, and intelligibility ultimately depend on Him. And so let's, you know, let's kind of take a look at some questions and arguments, not so much arguments, but just things that we often hear that I think illustrate this point that neutrality is sometimes implicitly just assumed and that we need to be able to point these things out, okay?

We'll give you some practical examples. I've even taken some comments from some of the YouTube videos of my past videos to kind of illustrate this point. And hopefully this is useful to you, all right?

Gingerbread flavored coffee, delicious. Leftover from Christmas, I think, but it is really good, just to advertise. What is in my cup? My cup, I'm drinking gingerbread coffee. It's not like a freshly, like, you know, grinded, like, coffee bean.

I think it's like a Keurig cup. So there you go, just in case you were interested, okay? All right, so let's address a common objection that often comes up in apologetics, you know, or someone will ask this question, you know, why don't you prove you're God with real evidence or why don't you provide credible evidence for your God, okay?

And I understand the heart of that question, and I agree that's a good question to ask, but not without qualification, okay? This seems like a reasonable request, and to some extent it is. I'm fine with that, okay?

But let's dig into what really is being assumed when many skeptics and atheists often suggest that you give them credible evidence, okay? Okay, this is something someone actually said in the comments.

So when someone asks for real or credible evidence, okay, they are implicitly assuming, whether they acknowledge it or not, the possibility of neutrality. Think about it. What is credible evidence? It's evidence that they would accept as credible, or a group of people would accept as credible, or a society which would deem it credible.

Maybe it's a scientific community or a philosophical community or whatever, okay? But something you need to keep in mind is that what you deem as credibility, something that has credibility, is itself worldview dependent.

What one person finds credible is determined by their underlying presuppositions, isn't that right? So for example, as a Christian, I find certain things credible because my worldview shapes how I interpret the evidence, how I interpret the facts.

However, an atheist might find some, you know, the same things incredible, not because of the evidence itself, but because their worldview assumptions lead them in that direction to reject, you know, the thing that we deem as credible as Christians,.

Right?

And so, you know, someone might say, you know, they might object and say, it's not about worldviews, it's about what's obvious, right? Certain things are just stupid and shouldn't even be considered, okay?

But again, what you think is stupid, okay, is not going to be the same as what someone else might think is stupid.

Why?

Well, because your perception of what is or isn't obvious is shaped by your presuppositions. And so when someone asks for credible evidence, what they're really asking for is evidence that aligns with their own worldview.

They're effectively saying, prove your God in a way that conforms to my biases and my assumptions. In essence, this kind of demand is really an invitation for the Christian to adopt a supposedly neutral stance in order to prove the truth of their position.

But here's the problem. Neutrality is not only contrary to the Christian worldview, it is philosophically unacceptable because no one truly is neutral. Again, everyone, and I'll repeat myself a million times, everyone interprets evidence through the lens of their own worldview, whether they acknowledge it or not, okay?

Now, this leads me to an important issue then. Do we give evidence to the unbeliever? I think this is a fair question.

Okay, we'll dive into that.

All right. Do we give evidence to the unbeliever?

Okay.

Are we, as presuppositionalists, are we to avoid giving evidence to the unbeliever? And my answer to that is absolutely not, okay? We can and we should present evidence. But there is an important qualification that we need to understand, that the evidence we give is always presented within a context of a meaningful worldview.

And for the Christian, it's going to be the Christian worldview. You see, evidence cannot be divorced from its interpretive framework. And as Christians, we argue that the Christian worldview is the only one, right?

The only worldview that provides the necessary preconditions for interpreting evidence meaningfully in the first place. This doesn't mean that we engage with every question or objection that comes our way.