The MYTH of neutrality 

Ajouté : 2026-05-06

[00:00:00]And so I have no problem saying that even agnosticism is irrational. Anyway >> So, you would say agnosticism is irrational? Yeah, I say agnosticism is irrational as well.

[00:00:09]>> Would you say that a belief is rational when it's proportioned to the available evidence?

[00:00:14]Well, whenever we talk about evidence there's already an assumption that there's a proper way of interpreting evidence. [music] So, evidence has to be interpreted by a worldview a priori. And so you have a metaphysic that goes into the interpretation of evidence. Are you interpreting evidence according to naturalistic assumptions, theistic assumptions, dualistic assumptions, idealistic assumptions? And so all these things are going to be the foundations by which you even begin to look at evidence. And I say the foundation you use to look at evidence itself can be irrational, contradictory, all those things. But [music] you would say that you interpret evidence in a different way than I do.

[00:00:54]Sure, everyone interprets evidence according to their fundamental presuppositions of metaphysics, epistemology.

[00:01:02]>> [music] >> Would you say that in order to interpret evidence you must have a mind, right?

[00:01:06]Sure, you must have a mind.

[00:01:07]>> But when you think Sorry, go ahead. But right when you say you must have a mind, whenever you think whenever you say a mind, you're thinking of a specific thing. So, you're either thinking of a brain that has the emergent properties of some type of chemical or you're thinking about some type of immaterial soul that connects with the physical brain. Um and so even those things there's going to be nuance that needs [music] to be sparked out. Look, let's just take the fact that you're person A who believes God exists, [music] I'm person B who's an atheist. You and I both have the same composite parts that make both of us human, right? And those same composite parts Hold on. Let me just go through it cuz I just want to be linear. So, we both have the same composite parts that make each other of us human, right? And those whether or not I believe in God or not, the truth is still going to exist regardless of my belief.

[00:01:59]So, >> [music] >> it seems as though you and I are just going to be using the same kind of faculties that would allow us to each come to truths. It doesn't matter what my belief is, right?

[00:02:09]>> [music] >> Sure, we're going to be using the same things but that has nothing to do with the justification of our interpretation of these things. That's where we're having a hang-up there because when right when you say that we have the composite parts that make us human, well, in a atheistic or materialistic worldview it's not going to be the same things that that make composite what a human is according to theism where we have an immaterial soul. These things are there are huge differences. These are not things that you can just overlook. They make all the difference in the world. These are foundational things, right? [music] And so you can't just skip over these things and think that you're being linear. And there is no neutral ground between the two because right when you begin to say, "Well, I'll just grant that there's a soul." Well, you've already lost the debate. And right when I just grant that there is no soul and we just have the brain, I've already lost the debate.