The "N" word.

I've been trying to think of a good way to illustrate the malignancy of this concept of “neutrality” as Van Til addresses it. Low and behold I stumbled upon Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) policy:

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?NeutralPointOfView

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view

The general tenor of the Wikipedia entry asserts you can't know ultimate reality and therefore should avoid making “biased” assertions so as not to exclude or offend anyone. By the time the editor is done qualifying what it means to be NPOV, he himself recognizes the self contradictory nature of his policy --HIS theory of what constitutes a “neutral point of view” biases his NPOV!

In the end, either everything means nothing or nothing means everything because you can't really know anything for sure anyway.

Neutrality is the ethic of autonomy: “Since all points of view are equally valid, I'll just hold to my own thank you. And you just keep your “opinion” to yourself.”