Neutrality & empiricism -- need some help

[nwink]

I have been more purposefully studying apologetics as of late, and I have a couple questions that I could use some explanation on (practical examples, etc). So some explanation for a non-sophisticated person like myself would be helpful.

(1) What does the myth of neutrality actually look like in an apologetic conversation? Meaning, what are some ways an unaware Christian may be tempted to be "neutral" in discussion with a non-Christian?

(2) What is the best way to challenge an empiricist? Meaning, what are some reasons or some explanation I could give an empiricist for why senses shouldn't be trusted as the ultimate determination of knowledge/truth (in his evolutionary worldview)?

 

[cih1355]

(1) What does the myth of neutrality actually look like in an apologetic conversation? Meaning, what are some ways an unaware Christian may be tempted to be "neutral" in discussion with a non-Christian?

If someone were to say the following to a non-Christian, he would appear to be neutral.

"Follow the evidence where it leads."
"Here is some evidence in favor of Christianity. You judge for yourself if it is true. You weigh it out."
"The evidence for Christianity makes Christianity more likely to be true than false."

You don't want to give the impression that there is some method for finding truth that everyone agrees with.

(2) What is the best way to challenge an empiricist? Meaning, what are some reasons or some explanation I could give an empiricist for why senses shouldn't be trusted as the ultimate determination of knowledge/truth (in his evolutionary worldview)?

You could say the following to an empiricist.

"How do you know that empiricism is true? Do you know that by your sense experience?"

 

[nwink]

So when an unaware Christian takes a "neutral" stance: (1) he makes it seem as if Christianity is probably true (and if it is "probably" true, it is just as likely that it probably isn't true), (2) it just shows neutrality is a myth because each person's presupposition may allow them to be more or less "convinced" by certain "neutral" evidences.

To pretend to be neutral is to deny that one has a presupposition or faith claim, which is impossible...and when so doing, the Christian would be somewhat denying his faith in the face of the unbeliever (or at least denying the authority of God).

Is this correct?

 

[Philip]

Meaning, what are some reasons or some explanation I could give an empiricist for why senses shouldn't be trusted as the ultimate determination of knowledge/truth (in his evolutionary worldview)?

By demonstrating their limits. Ask how the person knows that George Washington was the first President of the United States. The evidence for this proposition is not empirical at all: you are assuming, in fact, that the evidence has not been tampered with and that no one is trying to deceive you into believing a false proposition about who the first president was.

You don't want to give the impression that there is some method for finding truth that everyone agrees with.

There isn't? Funny, most people I know would agree that we know the external world by means of the senses.