Objectivity is a philosophical impossibility. At least according to the way that most people talk about objectivity it is impossible. All people have presuppositions, biases, and assumptions. The belief that we can be totally objective apart from the inerrant and revealed Word of God is naïve, futile, and arrogant.
Holding out hope for a purely objective perspective is simply naïve. Everyone affirms some sort of ultimate presupposition. An ultimate presupposition is “a belief over which no other takes precedence” (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 125). It’s a basic commitment of one’s heart. This isn’t to say that it is an irrational belief. While some people certainly choose their presuppositions arbitrarily, Christians certainly do not. John Frame states:
The Christian presupposition has the strongest possible rational ground: it is based on God’s revelation. In Hanna’s terms, it is “veridical knowledge,” not a “postulate.” It can even be proved, by a kind of argument (circular, to be sure, but cogent), as we will see. (125)
So Christians have presuppositions, we do not come to the question of inerrancy (or any other religious question) neutrally. The same, however, must be said of non-Christians too. Everyone has a supreme value and that value dictates how they interpret the rest of the world. That value will either lead us in the direction of the doctrine of inerrancy or it will lead us away from it. The important point to note, however, is that no one comes to the question of inerrancy unbiased. The question all of us need to wrestle with, then, is what informs our ultimate value. How did we establish our presupposition?
Many who claim reason over faith will have a hard time defending their assumptions on objective rational grounds. Without depending on an inerrant revelation we are simply naïve to believe in our reason. Frame clarifies:
When the unbeliever attacks Christianity for being based on “faith” as opposed to “reason,” it is important to reverse the complaint. The unbeliever, too, has presuppositions that he does not question and that govern every aspect of his thought and life. Thus in a relevant sense, he too has “faith.” He too argues in a circle. It is not as if the two are equal, however, for the non-Christian has no basis for trusting reason, except his blind faith. If this world is ultimately the product of chance plus matter, of space and time, why should we assume that events in our heads will tell us anything reliable about the real world? The Christian, though, knows that God has given reason to us as a reliable tool for knowing Him, the world, and ourselves. Thus the shoe is on the other foot. The Christian perspective is rational; the unbeliever’s is based on blind faith. (360)
Objectivity is simply not accessible to us, and it is naïve to think that we can attain it. Without the solid ground on an inerrant revealed world all rationalists essentially become irrationalists.
The pursuit of objectivity is also futile. Because we cannot attain perfect objectivity the pursuit of it leads us nowhere. We will constantly be looking for a starting place and either settle for an irrational one or continue an endless pursuit. Furthermore, this is complicated by the fact that to believe in an objectivity apart from God a person must hold two contradictory truths at the same time.
That is to say God, as creator, is truth and all other acquisitions of truth require some level of dependency on him, what Abraham Kuyper called the “dependent character of theology.” There is objectivity but it must be grounded in God’s transcendence first and foremost if we are to have any hope of attaining truth ourselves. If we seek to ground objectivity in our mind we do not secure it. We must believe in transcendent revelation to also believe in our own ability to obtain objectivity. This is a case of Romans 1 suppression of the truth. Speaking of an unbeliever, Frame writes:
The situation is complicated further in that the unbeliever knows God, and this knowledge influences his thoughts, speech, and actions in varying degrees and ways. In a sense, then, the unbeliever has two presuppositions. He presupposes both truth and falsehood, both the reality of God and the unreality of God. His thinking, therefore, is radically contradictory. (126)
Such self-contradicting presuppositions leads us nowhere in our own intellectual progress.
Finally, belief that I can attain perfect objectivity apart from the revelation of God is arrogant. Fundamentally it is an assumption that my mind is God. The truth of God, of His Word, and of His will is ultimately subject to my mind and my rational organization. If I cannot understand it in full detail then I refuse to believe it true. My mind becomes the standard for all truth. There is an unbelievable amount of hubris and audacity behind such beliefs. To believe that my mind is sufficiently capable of coming to truth apart from God is to make myself God. This intellectual pride is a great sin, and those who’ve studied the Scriptures know all too well what God thinks of pride and how he responds to it (Prov. 11:2; 16:5, 8). Rather than boasting in our intellectual abilities we ought to follow Paul: Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31).
Belief in objectivity apart from the revelation of God, apart from His inerrant and revealed Word, is naïve, futile, and arrogant. Our only hope is to submit to His word and find the truth we seek.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 