We all take classes where we discuss divisive ethical or political issues. These discussions reveal how differently we believe on current event issues, whether that be abortion, homosexuality, taxation or societal structure. However, it’s usually taboo to discuss religion. Were we to do that, these discussions might just be seen as a “my religion is better than yours” argument and might be judged as coming from a prideful motive.
Because it’s off-limits to touch another’s most foundational and religious beliefs, we are left to discuss current-event issues from a so-called “neutral” viewpoint – a viewpoint that acknowledges no God or higher being but just looks at the “plain facts.”
The problem with this mindset is that there is no “neutral” position. While we may try to keep our religions (or lack thereof) under the table while discussing divisive issues, they are still an inherent part of our thinking, as they determine the stance that we do put forward on the table, whether that be the pro-life or pro-choice position, capitalism or socialism. Though we try to hide the roots of our beliefs, those roots still dictate the nature of what the fruit will be on our philosophical branches. That’s why our conversations are so unfruitful.
Along those lines, the “neutral” position claims to deal with unbiased, “plain facts.” Someone articulating this position might say, “The evidence speaks for itself.” However, evidence does not speak for itself, because we do not let it. There are no “plain facts” because we all interpret them within our own philosophical and religious frameworks.
For example, different conclusions are made when an Evolutionist and a Creationist look at the same Grand Canyon, when a liberal and a conservative hear of a public shooting, or when socialists or capitalists see poverty in their hometown. We may intake the same facts, but we all interpret them differently, because we try to make them fit our pre-existing framework. Worldviews shape all of our thinking, analogous to how one’s pair of glasses filters how we see the world. Because neutrality is a myth, we cannot settle to look at the “plain facts.”
Thus, it is much more fruitful to abandon the guise of neutrality and discuss our underlining religious worldviews themselves. This is a much more meaningful level of interaction with each other’s ideas and our own. This way, we answer the, “Why do you believe this?” questions straight from our religious foundation and can then discuss the worldview itself. We’re not just evaluating each other’s fruit but rather getting to the root of the issues.
We should not be uncivil as we discuss others’ deeply held world views, nor should we be easily offended when others critique ours. This is mature dialogue and should be taken seriously.
Conversing this way will bring out the fact that ethical and political issues really are moral issues. We have a problem with something we see as unethical because we see it is a moral indignity, and in politics, we take issue with a certain stance because of a perceived moral failing in the other view.
For example, in the abortion debate, I would say it is morally wrong to kill a baby. A pro-choicer might say it is morally wrong to force a woman to carry a fetus to term. This subject and others are moral issues, and if they are moral issues, there is a deeper reason for our stance. That reason comes from our own foundational world views, which means the best progress made in our discussions comes from discoursing at that deep of a level.
The next time your class is discussing divisive issues, remember what you believe. Your professor is not neutral; your classmates are not neutral and neither are you. Christians are Christians in the classroom. Muslims are Muslims. So are Atheists, new-agers, Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons.
When we do this honestly, we are not only training our minds to interact at a more profound level, but many of us will find flaws or deficiencies in our reasoning, leading us to sharpen our understanding of our world view, or even change it as we make progress toward the truth.
