Bias free?

[amortalman]

In another thread, someone asked the question, "Can you set aside your own bias and free your minds to the truth about Jesus if there is any truth at all?"

It got me wondering if one can really be free of biases. It seems to me that if you tried to rid yourself of bias X you might swing too far toward bias Y. What are your thoughts on this?

So the question for debate is:

Can one be free of biases?

[Divine Insight]

Can one be free of biases?

I would say yes, a person can be free of biases. All that is required is that they look at the actual evidence and accept where the evidence leads. If you follow where the evidence leads how could that be said to be biased?

The problem then becomes one of asking what constitutes compelling evidence? Often times when it comes to theological discussions I see the theologians referring to ancient unverifiable stories as "evidence". It also seems to me that it's extremely apparent that they are clearly "biased" in favor of a particular theology. Because after all, they don't argue that other religious folklore should count as "evidence". So they are clearly "biased" in favor of the theology they have chosen to defend and support.

Their claim that non-theists who reject ALL hearsay folklore as being unverifiable are "biased" is clearly false.

Where is the evidence for any bias when the same standard for evidence is demanded from all theological folklore?

I think this is one situation where the "bias" is clearly one-way. A person can hardly support one ancient cultural folklore as "evidence" whilst dismissing all other cultural folklore as having no credibility at all.

So typically when it comes to something like theology, theists are pretty much guaranteed to be biased in favor of their favorite theology.

~~~~~

By the way, everyone is biased in general, but that doesn't mean that the need to be biased when proclaiming to hold absolute truths.

For example, I'm definitely biased in favor of Buddhism over any of the Abrahamic religions. No question about that. None the less I don't claim that Buddhism is true simply because I favor Buddhism over other theological paradigms.

Therein lies the difference between being biased in claiming to know truth, versus simply being biased in what a person might actually prefer to believe.

If "bias" simply means to favor what you like then clearly all humans are biased.

But if "bias" means to claim to know truths that you don't have any credible evidence for, then not everyone is biased.

~~~~~~

Another example could be politics. I'm definitely biased in favor of the policies held by the Democrats. I'm biased in favor of liberal policies over conservative policies.

But notice that I don't lay claim that my bias represents any absolute truth. I simply acknowledge what policies I prefer. I see nothing wrong with that kind of "bias".

Knowing the difference between bias and credible evidence is paramount in the sciences. And since I was trained as a scientist I feel that I have been freed from any bias when seeking credible evidence. I'm more than willing to go where credible evidence leads. Even if it leads to conclusions that I may not like. So I'm not biased when it comes to seeking truth.

[Complexity]

Great question and good response by Divine Insight.

We are all bias about the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. That is a practical, wise bias (a strong working assumption). We believe it, prefer it, and love it. We can't live without such good biases, nor should we be free of them.

But of course the word "bias" is commonly used to mean bad biases. Racism is a horrible bias. Everyone I personally know hates prejudice due to skin color, ethnic appearance, age, gender, regional (I’m a transplanted Okie), etc. Hating prejudice is a good bias opposing a bad bias. But even that can go too far at time.

We can debate what makes a bad bias. I think everyone in this venue might agree the following are bad (Let me know if you disagree):
1. Belief without diligent, open-minded study.
2. Belief built on motives of lazy, selfish, comfort-seeking (pet feeling following).
3. Refusal to fairly & fully consider opposing arguments.
4. Rejection of a claim because it is unfamiliar, feels foolish, seems to be evil or error. Most scientists in the 1860’s rejected Pasteur’s germ theory because invisible creatures seemed so odd, foolish, and myth-like.

Ironically, as much as we hate bad bias, we can't seem to help slipping into bad biases. I can see them much more clearly in others than in myself (another bad bias). We must fight our bad snap judgments, lazy belief formation, ill-motivated beliefs (anger-driven, ego-driven, fear-driven).

I too am trained in science and have been blessed to be able to run test programs, of diverse types, since 1974 (mechanical, industrial, little chemical). I love science and reason. They are kings of methods of finding truth. But historical evidence, philosophical arguments, revelations, love, etc are not inferior or garbage just because they are mostly not testable in a lab, not repeatable, difficult to tie down, and most are not publicly accessible (visible to everyone). All methods should be studied and tested by reason. We are all in danger of having a bad bias towards what we like and against what we dislike. But honest seeking and admitting our weaknesses can reshape our likes, neutralize many bad biases, and lead us closer to truth and goodness (assuming they exist; which I do).

[2ndRateMind]

For the purposes of discussion, I would like to present the following thought, for your consideration.

And that is that bias has a relationship to sin. Free of sin, I contend, we might be free of bias. A bias free world view has a lot to do with a selfless world view. Our innate selfishness (read, original sin) tends to predispose us to suspicion of, and sometimes even hatred of, people 'not like us'. In other words, the transparency with which we might view the world is coloured and distorted proportionately by the degree of sin we have. Rid ourselves of this kind of selfishness, we rid ourselves of this sort of sin, and free ourselves of this sort of bias.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[amortalman]

For the purposes of discussion, I would like to present the following thought, for your consideration.

And that is that bias has a relationship to sin. Free of sin, I contend, we might be free of bias. A bias free world view has a lot to do with a selfless world view. Our innate selfishness (read, original sin) tends to predispose us to suspicion of, and sometimes even hatred of, people 'not like us'. In other words, the transparency with which we might view the world is coloured and distorted proportionately by the degree of sin we have. Rid ourselves of this kind of selfishness, we rid ourselves of this sort of sin, and free ourselves of this sort of bias.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Merriam Webster defines sin as:

1 a : an offense against religious or moral law
b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible it's a sin to waste food
c : an often serious shortcoming : fault

2 a : transgression of the law of God
b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

I assume you are defining sin from the religious perspective i.e. selfishness, hatred, etc. are sins against your god.

From my perspective selfish, hateful people, including those who murder, rape, and steal along with other anti-social behaviors, have evolutionary brain flaws enhanced or mitigated by one's environment. Empathy, or lack thereof, seems to be paramount
in determining if a person is evil or good. (National Geographic, January 2018 The Science of Good & Evil)

During my life as a Christian I would have said that, yes, biases have a relationship to sin. But in saying that I would have been blind to my own religious bias.

But generally speaking, I think that high morals, whether nourished by Christianity, Buddhism, or something else, promotes fewer biases than low morals.

[Complexity]

amortalman Wrote:

From my perspective selfish, hateful people, including those who murder, rape, and steal along with other anti-social behaviors, have evolutionary brain flaws enhanced or mitigated by one's environment. Empathy, or lack thereof, seems to be paramount
in determining if a person is evil or good. (National Geographic, January 2018 The Science of Good & Evil)

I ran across a very interesting guy. David Wood has a gentic defect that makes him 100% unable to feel emphaty, his whole life. He felt nothing when his dog died and when his best friend suddenly died. He hit his father (a good man) in the head with a hammer for crazy reasons. Yet he found his way to faith. Check out “Why I am a Christian, David Wood� on Youtube. Point is that a person can have zero natural empathy and still find sanity, love, and God.

I always hugged my mother, kissed her on the cheek, and felt love and empathy for all. Yet, in my late teens I began to lose my humanity. I began to think I was merely a slightly smarter ape headed nowhere for no reason. I know most Atheists don’t go down that path. I fully concede that point. But what is it in the law of the jungle (Survival of the Fittest) that forbids me, or even discourages me from doing the things I did? I did some shoplifting, broke into my High School at night to change one grade I made that I thought was unfair (I saw where the teacher kept his grade book), I had murderous thoughts towards those who offended me, lost my love an empathy for others, and eventually became suicidal. Thank God I am now a new creation. Through all of that, I never became bias towards other races, gender, non-geeks, the elderly, etc. One exception is that I began to support the idea of abortion as a way to prevent over-population and unwanted children. But let’s not open that can of worms here.

I grew up mostly in Lawton OK, which had some ugly aspects of discrimination against Blacks. I always had empathy for the trials of Blacks, and did some protesting against it (I am white). Doe Doe Park had the best swimming pool and skating rink anywhere around, but the owner refused to let Blacks (1966-1968). Also many restarant didn’t allow Blacks. Even in my worst days, where my humanity was slipping away, I never bought into racism in any form.

I know that David Wood and I are only 2 data points. But I think they are strong evidences that empathy does not equal bias.

Websters says:
Bias = A particular tendency of inclination, especially one which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question.
Prejudice implies a preformed judgement even more unreasoning than Bias, and usuallly implies an unfavorable opinion.

[2ndRateMind]

But generally speaking, I think that high morals, whether nourished by Christianity, Buddhism, or something else, promotes fewer biases than low morals.

I would tend to agree. With all due respect to your references, though, I am inclined to take a simple view, and see sin as selfishness, and virtue as unselfishness.

Consider the seven deadly sins: Pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony, avarice, envy and lust. These are all selfish ways to be. By comparison, their opposites are all selfless ways to be, duly expressed as love. Should we all love, widely and deeply, as God intends, then I think all our biases against others might thus evaporate, and theirs against us disappear.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[amortalman]

amortalman Wrote:

From my perspective selfish, hateful people, including those who murder, rape, and steal along with other anti-social behaviors, have evolutionary brain flaws enhanced or mitigated by one's environment. Empathy, or lack thereof, seems to be paramount
in determining if a person is evil or good. (National Geographic, January 2018 The Science of Good & Evil)

I ran across a very interesting guy. David Wood has a gentic defect that makes him 100% unable to feel emphaty, his whole life. He felt nothing when his dog died and when his best friend suddenly died. He hit his father (a good man) in the head with a hammer for crazy reasons. Yet he found his way to faith. Check out “Why I am a Christian, David Wood� on Youtube. Point is that a person can have zero natural empathy and still find sanity, love, and God.

Well...I think the verdict is still out on David Wood IF it is true. You know what they say about things you see on the internet. Assuming that Wood did have the condition and overcame it doesn't make a case for anything, certainly not that a god healed him, which is what you seem to be getting at.

For those who believe that their "God" healed David Wood I would ask this question:
Where was God when children were brutally raped and killed at the hands of psychopaths who have no empathy?

But what is it in the law of the jungle (Survival of the Fittest) that forbids me, or even discourages me from doing the things I did?

This common argument by apologists takes the position that "God" is the only moral law-giver and without him, mankind would have no restraints. That's ridiculous. To prove your point you would have to show that all atheists and non-theists are immoral. That simply isn't true. In fact, many atheists are more Christian in their behavior than Christians are.

I respect and do good to others because it's the right thing to do, not because some deity requires it.

As evolved creatures, mankind found it beneficial to work with others and help others. If we were kind and generous to others it would likely be repaid in kind. It was all about survival. And yes, survival sometimes meant that violence and theft were just as beneficial.

I did some shoplifting, broke into my High School at night to change one grade I made that I thought was unfair (I saw where the teacher kept his grade book), I had murderous thoughts towards those who offended me, lost my love an empathy for others, and eventually became suicidal. Thank God I am now a new creation.

Good for you, and I mean it. Many people have experienced real life changes for the better after they found religion, others have done the same thing without religion. The power of the mind is an awesome thing if one believs something strong enough. And it works whether or not their object of faith is real or not.

I grew up mostly in Lawton OK, which had some ugly aspects of discrimination against Blacks. I always had empathy for the trials of Blacks, and did some protesting against it (I am white). Doe Doe Park had the best swimming pool and skating rink anywhere around, but the owner refused to let Blacks (1966-1968). Also many restarant didn’t allow Blacks. Even in my worst days, where my humanity was slipping away, I never bought into racism in any form.

I know that David Wood and I are only 2 data points. But I think they are strong evidences that empathy does not equal bias.

I never said that empathy does not equal bias. If anything, empathy makes bias less likely, as I suggested.

[amortalman]

But generally speaking, I think that high morals, whether nourished by Christianity, Buddhism, or something else, promotes fewer biases than low morals.

I would tend to agree. With all due respect to your references, though, I am inclined to take a simple view, and see sin as selfishness, and virtue as unselfishness.

I think you might be taking TOO simple a view. If sin is selfishness then "God" would have only one commandment: Thou shalt not be selfish.

Consider the seven deadly sins: Pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony, avarice, envy and lust. These are all selfish ways to be.

True, but you can't define them by one word.

By comparison, their opposites are all selfless ways to be, duly expressed as love. Should we all love, widely and deeply, as God intends, then I think all our biases against others might thus evaporate, and theirs against us disappear.

I agree, and that's certainly a laudable ideal, but totally unrealistic, as I'm sure you realize. But you've now defined sin as a lack of love. Maybe the one commandment should be Thou shalt love. In fact, I kind of like that, but that virtue isn't exclusive to the Bible.

[2ndRateMind]

I agree, and that's certainly a laudable ideal, but totally unrealistic, as I'm sure you realize. But you've now defined sin as a lack of love. Maybe the one commandment should be Thou shalt love. In fact, I kind of like that, but that virtue isn't exclusive to the Bible.

For me, this is the central message of the Gospels, and what Jesus lived and died for. All the rest is detail. As He put it*:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

If we were to just obey these two commandments, as Christians heart-struck by the holy spirit tend to do, then I think our selfish biases would all fade to nothing.

Best wishes, 2RM

*Luke 10:27 KJV