In part 1 of this series, I posed the question: is it really possible to be neutral on subjects like religion, politics & belief?  In that post, I briefly discussed the odd paradox that we endure daily as a result of the influence that relativism and logical positivism have had on our culture.  All belief is rendered equally true or equally meaningless by the ‘absolute’ of "’no absolutes” in relativism.  Yet, at the same time, claiming the backing of science is still one of the ultimate trump cards that can be played in any metaphysical, philosophical or political debate.

I think special attention needs to be paid to the desire we have to appear ‘objective by being neutral’ on contentious issues.  There is an underlying fear: if we admit to having any sort of bias or opinion, that somehow undermines our credibility and brings any contribution we make to the debate under suspicion.  The flipside is that we are expected to trust “neutral” voices without question.  Questioning those who claim to be neutral is more often met by name-calling (or some sort of political categorizing) as opposed to honest answers.  How did we arrive at a place where having an opinion and belief on a given topic disqualifies you from participating in a debate on that topic?  If neutrality were truly possible, how could two parties debate an issue on which neither of them held convictions?  There’s no real answer to either question – because neutrality in these contexts is a myth.

Today’s “notion” of neutrality is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment’s idea of the “state of nature” – the concept of what humanity was before (and would be like outside of) the existence of the state.  Many philosophers during that time period (like Jean-Jacques Rousseau) believed that man was neither good nor bad in this state, but that civilization causes humanity’s ills and vices.  The modernized version of this is that religion (or partisanship, or intolerance…{or insert belief system here}) has caused innumerable deaths through war and persecution, and that its influence should be marginalized continually until it’s altogether eliminated.  So, the postmodern ‘idyllic neutrality’ is a person devoid of religious conviction, since such convictions would make “objective” thought impossible.  This logic, however appealing to our post-modern minds, is flawed.

All action is driven by belief.  That belief may be in science, God, yourself or your political party leader.  You may believe something because someone told you, or because you examined the evidence firsthand.  You may believe that belief doesn’t matter – nonetheless it’s still a belief.  As my friend Steve Betz recently said, “There is a great line in the book (and film) "Contact" in which the religious counselor to the President asks Ellie the scientist "Did you father love you?" "Of course" she answers. "Prove it" — and she is left speechless.”

What about the arguments we hear around us today?  Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, for example.  The idea that the universe can be explained apart from the existence of some force or entity that exists outside of it is a philosophical stance (naturalism), not a scientific one.  Because of this, evolution finds itself as rooted in philosophical belief as many other worldviews.  This reality should be taken into account as we seek to understand the viability of either theory – since both make claims outside the realm of empirical measurability.  Take political “hot potatoes”, for example.  The shrill shouting match over issues like abortion and gay marriage are often tinged with phrases like “you ought not to push your morality on others”.  To which I have one question in response, “Why not?  You just did.”  If you feel that way, then your beliefs and your morality have compelled you to oppose anyone promoting a moral system that does not match your own.  How, then, are you any more objective, tolerant or neutral than the opposition? (And, no, I am not advocating the idea of me or anyone like me “forcing” my beliefs down anyone’s throat.)  Legislative action on either side of these kinds of debates is inherently biased by nature – because an action based on moral belief is being carried out.

I think part of why we esteem neutrality stems from our desire to keep the peace in culture where so many conflicting belief systems interact – we desire to be (and to encourage others to be) tolerant.  In my next post in this series, we’ll look at how the idea and meaning of ‘tolerance’ has changed significantly in the last few decades…