Have you noticed that we assume some people are without a bias or prejudice? We tend to forget everyone has parents, teachers, and friends that influence our views. These views are then reinforced through the books we read, the schools we attend, and the media we enjoy. To transcend our indoctrinated views, regardless if they are atheistic, agnostic, or theistic, requires a conscious effort.
In our culture we tend to think of the media, people who study a field of science, teachers, etc. as being unbiased robots. These human robots can then neutrally parse raw information and provide interpretations that are absolute facts. When I started on my journey to see if God exists, I assumed that religious leaders and their information would be biased while scientific literature would be written, assessed and published by these human robots that can provide just raw facts. I could then take this unbiased data to form my beliefs.
What I found was the opposite. Scientists have biases. Different scientists can look at the same piece of evidence and interpret it differently. For example, most of us think of evolution as a gradual process of billions of years, however, some data points to an explosion of life in a short period of time. This has led to two interpretations: Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium. Gradualism means things gradually transformed over long periods of time and Punctuated Equilibrium means there were quick points in time where life quickly “showed up on the scene”. What’s interesting is this debate within secular science is based on interpretation of data and evidence.
SIDENOTE: Now I feel I need to stop for a second and reiterate that science can be good and many scientists might have incredible minds. I love reading and listening to secular scientific research. My point in this article is to de-program our natural belief that science and the media are unbiased and somehow more grounded in reality.
But do the quotes from scientists reflect opinion or reinforce what we are taught through society-that they are unbiased?
Scientist Richard Dawkins wrote the following:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Does this sound like an unbiased mind ready to interpret evidence wherever it takes him? To me, he seems angry and opinionated. He also seems to understand the difference between “good” and “evil”. He didn’t make an atheistic, Darwinian comment, but rather is making a moral judgment based on something that seems inconsistent with atheism. The other point is that, although Dawkins is very intelligent, his knowledge of scripture seems deficient.
But maybe Richard Dawkins is a renegade atheist who has assumed the role of a preacher of evolution, so let’s review this quote by someone else:
“The Bible as we have it contains elements that are scientifically incorrect or even morally repugnant. No amount of ‘explaining away’ can convince us that such passages are the product of Divine Wisdom.”
Bernard J. Bamberger
Again, we can easily detect emotion and intellectual superiority. He has closed the door on the Bible and draws conclusions that the Bible is scientifically incorrect and morally repugnant. Again, the most interesting aspect to this quotation is he appeals to morality. You see, with evolutionary processes, there is no such thing as ultimate “good” and “evil”. They are subjective, relative concepts. So although most would agree that Charles Manson seems morally corrupt, only a theist that believes in an ultimate standard for “good” and “evil” has a logical reason to make such an absolute claim.
If we simply exist because of chance, then any moral or ethical judgments are solely the opinion of the individual and have no ultimate justification.
The final point in assessing Bramberger’s quote is he also displays an ignorant view of scripture. In my years of study, it seemed the theologian was largely ignorant about scientific arenas and the agnostic/atheistic naturalist was ignorant about scripture.
The challenge for each person is to recognize that biases, opinions and prejudices (both overt and subtle) are part of our everyday life. Without this recognition, we can easily accept an interpretation as fact.
Next Article – “How Does Your Moral Compass Work?” – Coming Soon.
Submitted by Ken Carroll
