Reducing Interpretive Bias

[Ray the atheist]

The Preamble

For the past few months, I have been presenting my thoughts about the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2–3. The more I discuss it with Christians, the more I learn that the Christian interpretation is only one way to understand the story.

I thank everyone for helping me develop my thoughts. Your objections are challenging me to learn things that would probably have taken me the rest of my life to discover on my own.

I hope that you will continue to challenge my arguments, and I hope I can return the favour.

Scholars examine Genesis 2–3 using historical-critical, literary, comparative, linguistic, cultural, archaeological, anthropological, psychological, and moral analysis.

These methods allow scholars to examine ancient texts from multiple perspectives rather than assuming later theological interpretations are historically accurate.

For example, the snake can be examined linguistically as the Hebrew nāḥāš, literarily as “crafty,” comparatively through ancient Near Eastern serpent traditions, culturally through ancient snake symbolism, archaeologically through material evidence, psychologically as a representation of temptation, and morally through the narrative’s treatment of disobedience.

Christians usually interpret Genesis with Christian theology because those doctrines are foundational to Christian beliefs.
However, mostly focusing on those interpretations can introduce bias when making an analysis of Genesis.

Some useful definitions:

1. Historical-critical: Examining an ancient text through its historical context, development, authorship, and original setting.
2. Theological: Concerning religious beliefs and doctrines about God.
3. Bias: A tendency that can influence interpretation and prevent objective evaluation.
4. Agnostic atheist: Someone who does not believe a god exists while remaining uncertain whether gods exist.
5. Secular: Approaching a subject without relying on religious authority or doctrine.
6. Supernatural: Existing beyond or outside the natural world and its ordinary processes.
7. Superstitions: Beliefs that events are influenced by supernatural forces without reliable evidence.
8. Critical thinking: Carefully evaluating claims, evidence, reasoning, assumptions, and conclusions.

The Argument:

P1: Later Christian doctrines influence how Christians interpret Genesis.
P2: Interpretations influenced by later doctrines can introduce bias.
C: Therefore, relying mostly on Christian theological interpretations can bias our understanding of Genesis.

Question for debate:

If our goal is to understand what Genesis originally meant, can we accurately investigate it while assuming Christian theological interpretations are already correct?

[The Tanager]

Question for debate:

If our goal is to understand what Genesis originally meant, can we accurately investigate it while assuming Christian theological interpretations are already correct?

No. But are there actually many who do this?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #2]

If our goal is to understand what Genesis originally meant, can we accurately investigate it while assuming Christian theological interpretations are already correct?

___________________________

No. But are there actually many who do this?

________________________________________

Great!!
Im happy that you don't assume what you want to explain.

I'm not claiming that many do.
I just wanted your opinion on if assumptions and biases are a good pathway to the true meaning of an ancient story.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #3]

I just wanted your opinion on if assumptions and biases are a good pathway to the true meaning of an ancient story.

Hello Ray-

Have you asked yourself this same question? You approach every topic the same way, with your own set of assumptions and biases. Is that a good investigative pathway?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #4]

I just wanted your opinion on if assumptions and biases are a good pathway to the true meaning of an ancient story.

Hello Ray-

Have you asked yourself this same question? You approach every topic the same way, with your own set of assumptions and biases. Is that a good investigative pathway?

_____________________________

Thanks for asking.


Of course, I have.

My critical thinking principles have me criticize my own cherished beliefs.. that's where my bias lie. They are the prime suspects, and where I start being critical. I criticize my own beliefs first.

I want to minimize my biases because they can make me interpret an ancient text through my existing beliefs rather than its historical context.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #5]

Thanks for asking.

Of course, I have.

My critical thinking principles have me criticize my own cherished beliefs.. that's where my bias lie. They are the prime suspects, and where I start being critical. I criticize my own beliefs first.

I want to minimize my biases because they can make me interpret an ancient text through my existing beliefs rather than its historical context.

Great! I think that's probably the most common error of atheists and theists alike. Where assumptions begin, inquiry is then steered in some particular direction as a result. I mean, if you begin a journey with a destination in mind, you'll likely do your best to get there, the best way you know how.

In what way do you criticize your beliefs and bias against the value of scriptural accounts?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #6]

Great! I think that's probably the most common error of atheists and theists alike. Where assumptions begin, inquiry is then steered in some particular direction as a result. I mean, if you begin a journey with a destination in mind, you'll likely do your best to get there, the best way you know how.

In what way do you criticize your beliefs and bias against the value of scriptural accounts?

_____________________________________

I agree about bias.. I discovered about bias from discussing religious reasoning with Christians, like you. If it wasn't for Christianity and other belief systems, I might have not bothered all that much, and consequently would have had many more unreliable conclusions than I have right now.

I am grateful to each and every Christian that had to put up with me, including yourself.

30 years ago all I could do was to attack and use ad hominems and feel like a winner.

I'm very happy of the progress I have made since then.
My arrogance has hit rock bottom... or so it seems from comparing then and now.

So, my method is called "critical thinking" which is pretty much using most of the scientific epistemological methods.

Here is my list of critical thinking skills that I use :

1. Logical analysis
2. Argument analysis
3. Evidence evaluation
4. Source criticism
5. Historical analysis
6. Textual analysis
7. Linguistic analysis
8. Contextual analysis
9. Bias detection
10. Fallacy identification
11. Alternative-explanation testing
12. Falsifiability
13. Consistency checking
14. Assumption identification
15. Independent verification

[Mr E]

[Replying to Mr E in post #6]

Great! I think that's probably the most common error of atheists and theists alike. Where assumptions begin, inquiry is then steered in some particular direction as a result. I mean, if you begin a journey with a destination in mind, you'll likely do your best to get there, the best way you know how.

In what way do you criticize your beliefs and bias against the value of scriptural accounts?

_____________________________________

I agree about bias.. I discovered about bias from discussing religious reasoning with Christians, like you. If it wasn't for Christianity and other belief systems, I might have not bothered all that much, and consequently would have had many more unreliable conclusions than I have right now.

I am grateful to each and every Christian that had to put up with me, including yourself.

30 years ago all I could do was to attack and use ad hominems and feel like a winner.

I'm very happy of the progress I have made since then.
My arrogance has hit rock bottom... or so it seems from comparing then and now.

So, my method is called "critical thinking" which is pretty much using most of the scientific epistemological methods.

Here is my list of critical thinking skills that I use :

1. Logical analysis
2. Argument analysis
3. Evidence evaluation
4. Source criticism
5. Historical analysis
6. Textual analysis
7. Linguistic analysis
8. Contextual analysis
9. Bias detection
10. Fallacy identification
11. Alternative-explanation testing
12. Falsifiability
13. Consistency checking
14. Assumption identification
15. Independent verification

Wonderful. I take you at your word.

I discovered about bias from discussing religious reasoning with Christians, like you.

Do you detect within yourself any inherent bias even in this statement above?

Do you expect that Christians are monolithic to some degree, and that all think alike, for the mostpart?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #1]

I think that you miss the Christian conservative interpretation of the Bible, @Ray the atheist, that interprets any Bible passage in the light of the rest of the Bible. Why? That assumption is what the Bible says it is, inspired by God. Therefore, the best interpretation is to do it in the light of the whole Bible. As a result, what the Apostle Paul says about the fall of Adam and Eve is very relevant:

Rom 5:12  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 
Rom 5:13  for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 
Rom 5:14  Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 
Rom 5:15  But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 

Paul contrasts the first Adam with the second Adam, Jesus, who reverses for believers the result of Adam and Eve's sinful rebellion that affects everyone.

1Co 15:20  But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 
1Co 15:21  For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 
1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 
1Co 15:23  But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 

Thus, inspired Paul says that even though death comes to all people because of Adam's sin, Christ's resurrection brings eternal life and future bodily resurrection to all people who trust in him (those who are "in Christ").

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #8]

I discovered about bias from discussing religious reasoning with Christians, like you.

Do you detect within yourself any inherent bias even in this statement above?

Do you expect that Christians are monolithic to some degree, and that all think alike, for the mostpart?

_________________________________

Not even a little.
I have come to expect wildly different, subjective interpretations.

I just let people explain to me what they believe.