Neutrality and objectivity - concepts that are hotly debated. What counts as neutral? Certainly, as a critic of religion, few religious people would not describe me as neutral or objective. But from the point of view of a skeptic, my position is perfectly neutral and objective - I haven't accepted claims that are not backed by evidence. So, bizarrely, neutrality and objectivity are treated as subjective concepts! But I think I can make a case as to why skepticism is a neutral and objective position.

Skepticism, specifically empirical skepticism, can be shown as the best method for approaching claims of all kinds. By questioning ideas, it enforces a kind of natural selection on thought. An idea that is found to be entirely wrong will be discarded, an idea that is found to be incorrect in specific circumstances will be modified, and an idea that is found to be correct will be affirmed. However, even ideas that have been found to be correct will still be questioned, as we are constantly finding new evidence. This leads to our ideas not necessarily becoming true - we aren't sure yet if they ever can be completely true - but becoming less false.

So what is the reverse of skepticism? Dogmatism. The tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Religions by their nature are inherently dogmatic - they have a central set of ideas that are never questioned within the religion. In light of new evidence, things rarely change. Instead the goalposts are shifted, so that the evidence suddenly isn't enough to challenge their ideas, or the evidence is outright dismissed or attacked. On the other side of the coin, they don't feel that they need evidence for their claims, or that their evidence is being ignored by those who disbelieve, or one of many other shaky arguments. With dogmatism, our ideas never change, only the excuses we make for them do.

So which system is more objective and neutral? One that modifies it's ideas based on the available evidence and proposes new ideas from the same? Or one that holds to the same ideas and ignores evidence altogether? You decide.