# Is Autonomous Thinking always sinful?



## JohnGill (Jan 5, 2012)

Or to put it another way, are we ever allowed to be neutral with regards to any subject in our thinking? Must we always start our thinking with theological presuppositions? 

I keep running into Christians who hold to theological presuppositions in many areas, but in certain intellectual pursuits they hold to autonomy and a belief in neutrality. From what I've read in the Bible, Christ denied that neutrality is possible, and scripture seems clear in stating that all our thoughts must be informed by scripture from their beginning. Usually the excuse I get when pointing that out is that the unregenerate won't respect us or our endeavors if we don't start with a neutral view of the "facts." 

Has anyone else run into this, and if so, how did you deal with it?

For clarity, I am not commenting on apologetic method or discussing how to engage in apologetics when I discuss these issues. A good example would be a physics student who refuses to hold to a Christian worldview with regard to the "facts" of physics. Same for a biology, psychology, linguistic, economics, business, law, or philology student.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 5, 2012)

We can begin with any premise we want as long as we know that premise has a firm footing in reality. Neutrality doesn't relate to the 'facts' that we deal with but to the method or logic we use in organizing and drawing conclusions from those facts. Paul said that "“‘In him we live and move and have our being’, this tells us up front that there is no neutral place or position in all of creation where we can stand.

For the laws of logic to exist, there must be a transcendent law maker and giver. For science to have any real value or meaning, there must be a law of uniformity, a source for the orderliness that we see. For morals to have any foundation at all, there must be a transcendent standard of goodness. A materialistic worldview or neutral worldview can offer no basis for logic, uniformity and morality and hence, neutrality is a myth.

Raw facts take us nowhere, facts and evidence do not lead. It is common to hear a materialist say, "let's go where the evidence takes us". This is nonsense, evidence takes us nowhere. Evidence, facts must be run through the filters of our worldview in order to reach a conclusion. All thinking is circular, all thinking is dependent on our assumptions, all thinking requires a leap of faith.

In answer to your original question, arguing from neutrality is not sinful but the result of our sinfulness (the noetic effects of sin). Faulty thinking, fallacious arguments are not sin but the product of a fallen world. The believer's thinking first and foremost presupposes God, the unbeliever does not and unbelief is a sin.

We can argue ad hominem with someone but eventually we need to demonstrate that the person's worldview is either arbitrary, inconsistent or lacks the preconditions of intelligibility (The AIP test).


----------



## JoannaV (Jan 5, 2012)

The Bible is the factest fact out there. Someone could do some hypothetical thinking for sure: "if we didn't have the Bible then xyz,... but we do have the Bible so we have greater knowledge than that and so xyz is a false hypothesis."


----------



## JohnGill (Jan 5, 2012)

BobVigneault said:


> *In answer to your original question, arguing from neutrality is not sinful but the result of our sinfulness (the noetic effects of sin). Faulty thinking, fallacious arguments are not sin but the product of a fallen world. The believer's thinking first and foremost presupposes God, the unbeliever does not and unbelief is a sin.*



It's those claiming to be believers that are putting forth the idea that we must be neutral in our thinking on various subjects. I understand that there are no "brute" facts; all facts are interpreted facts. However, the various Christians I've been running into deny this and state that we must approach the facts with a "neutral" mindset in order to be considered credible by unbelievers. To me, this seems to be compromising with sin as a "neutral" mindset is immoral since it is at the start a denial of God himself.

What I'd like to know, is after having explained all this to such a person, and they refuse to give up their alleged neutrality, what would you say to them then?

Or is this the point at which there is nothing left to be said?


----------



## jandrusk (Jan 5, 2012)

For me it comes down to a simple equation; if in any part of your "autonomous" thinking you are separating your Christian presuppositions then I think it is sinful, because I think it is in that thought/instant that you are negating faith. 

KJV: Romans 14:23. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: *for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. *


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 6, 2012)

If the person insists on neutrality, then I would ask them how they justify logic, morality and uniformity. If they say that it just IS or it's always been that way and always will be then you point out that they are begging the question and are not neutral. Neutrality is mythical, it can't be justified.


----------

