Overcomer wrote:
ElCodeMonkey wrote:
If truly you are objective, then I would expect you have no trouble assuming the possibility that the Bible is not the Word of God but rather a work of man which contain some spiritual truths mingled with lies.
If you were truly objective, then I would expect you to have no trouble accepting the possibility that the Bible is the Word of God and not the word of man.
It works both ways.
Indeed it does. And I don't discredit that for a second. It is indeed possible. Now, as Goat pointed out, feel free to dish out the objective evidence in support of it. Without the objective evidence, there's no objective reason to believe it whether it is true or not. I have no objective evidence to believe my wife is cheating on me. I can still believe she is, and she indeed still could be, but it's not a belief reached through objective reasoning whether she is or not. I choose not to believe the Bible is the Word of God due to the lack of objective evidence along with much objective evidence that points to man being very creative in their past evils, lies and ways to control people.
Overcomer wrote:Everybody has a worldview. It is developed as we grow. It comes from our families, our schools, the media, what we read, etc. In other words, NOBODY is objective. We all have lenses through which we view the world around us. I would say that most people rarely think about the lenses they use, where they got them, whether they're logical or reliable, or if there is a better worldview out there that makes more sense or would help them succeed at life.
I agree. But a person whose worldview and ingrained lenses has led them to become objective, I don't think it is impossible to be so. Objectivity is like math. It is logical reasoning from the data points we have and allowing every single data-point to be re-proven right or wrong if said proof is available. (this is what my 'mutable axioms' group refers to). I don't think one has to have all knowledge to be objective. I think he must be able to recognize that he may not have all the right data points and to be willing to change his data points at any given time based upon logical assessments of stronger-reasoned data points.
Overcomer wrote:To quote someone (I can't remember who!
), a worldview is to people what water is to a fish. We swim in it all the time without even thinking about it. I think it's an excellent idea for all of us to examine what we believe, why we believe it, if it's worth believing, if there are other beliefs that are more valid, etc.
I agree. I hope you do just that and uplift doing so. Only by this mindset will we eventually converge on truth. If everyone does it, some will still be led astray but the majority will come to agreement.
Overcomer wrote:And that would definitely involve
trying to be objective to some extent. At the very least, it implies a willingness to seriously consider that somebody else might be right and we might be wrong. But nobody can assess evidence, etc., without bias. We all approach everything with presuppositions whether we are aware of them or not.
I wouldn't call incorrect data a bias. I would say that I am not biased toward anything except goodness. I will lean toward allowing goodness to prevail. I am not ashamed of that bias and it will indeed shape my logical conclusions. Though I do think logic can indeed show that it's not merely a bias, but truth, that goodness is the better route for man to take. Beyond that, anything perceived as a bias will merely be a lack of proper data-points which I don't believe is the same. I may think that all low-income people are fat lazy slobs and thus make decisions based on it. If you show me data that it's not true, I would then stop believing that and perhaps make new decisions. I made the decisions objectively based upon my "fact". If I were biased toward disliking lower-income people then your facts would have no impact.
This is exactly what happens with the Bible. People have a bias that it is perfect and thus all facts against such are interpreted away. Once a person understands that it's possible that it's not perfect, the evidence then starts supporting it instead of being something to work around. When one can say, "yes this is evidence for discontinuity" and allowing it to remain evidence and log it in their mind, they can start to see the pile of "evidence" and see that it outweighs the pile of "evidence" that it's congruent. Instead, people find a way to discount it and no longer see it as "evidence" even when it is still evidence if not proof. The evidence abounds but each piece has its own alibi. The goal is not to find a workaround, the goal is to see if there's enough evidence. In OJ Simpson's trial, it could have been said that the bloody glove fell from a plane that flew overhead. So ha, that shows there's a way it's not OJs. We can't "prove" it's his, but it's one more piece of evidence. We don't simply take the plane story because it's possible. We acknowledge the possibility and yet leave it as evidence to be weighed. Once we realize that of all the evidence it requires planes, ufos, dolphins, and juggling cats, we can probably conclude that the evidence speaks for itself and it's less likely that we should take up all the workarounds instead.
This is what I have done in regard to the Bible. I started out believing it was God's Word. I put the utmost faith in it. I put so much faith in it that I quit college in my Junior year to become a missionary. However, I still let objective truth be my guide. I got tired of supporting workarounds. And boy was I good at making them! I was a master of apologetics. Eventually, the weight of evidence against it was undeniable though. The history of mankind, the path he's always taken, the corruption he started out with, the practices that occurred, the incongruent passages, the questions of why God does or doesn't do something that is counter to my own understanding of love, why he seemed to mimic all the atrocities that man used to hold and yet seemed to change over time just like man's sensibilities. It's just too much now. God is not answering the prayers of someone who needs a baby crib and someone just happens to donate one while allowing the cries of little girls being raped for money continue without end. The REAL evidence is overwhelming but one has to allow it to BE evidence rather than brushing it off with explanations. I can come up with reasons God would do this but that doesn't make it any less evidence against an all loving and all powerful God.
). I am willing and able to listen to all evidence and make decisions based on facts. I presume most people feel the same way, however. Can we really know our own objectiveness? Is it really all that hard to be objective? Am I worse at it than I believe? Is there a way to test objectiveness?
