I try hard not to be biased. It's everyone else -- at least the ones with a differing opinion -- that needs to reflect on their biases! Like Mythicists (who 'hate God' if they are atheists, or are infidels if they are theists) and like Historicists (who are hopelessly bound with confessional duty if they are theists, or want to suck up to the religious if they are atheists).
I think there are two types of biases: one bias towards a position on a controversial subject, and another bias towards a philosophical position reflecting a world view. I'll admit a bias towards my own position that Jesus was a historical figure, a minor cult leader, because to me all the evidence points towards that conclusion, and the evidence that doesn't point to that conclusion can be explained away. The latter is where I need to be careful of my own bias. I need to be careful of examining opposing viewpoints fairly and in depth. Unfortunately this leads to accusations that I'm obsessed with mythicism. But if I don't examine opposing viewpoints, I'd be accused of ignoring it. There isn't a way out of that dilemma.
With regards to my philosophical position of being a theist (though not a Christian): I don't think it plays a part in my bias on the HJ/MJ question. I honestly don't care whether there was a historical Jesus or not. Even when I identified as a liberal Christian, I never cared. But there's no point trying to convince people of that.
Biased people can be right. Unbiased people can be wrong. My solution: ignore other people's biases. Ignore your own bias. Keep to the data/speculation and work from there. Stick to the argument based on the data/speculation. Once the accusations of bias start flowing, the argument is at an end.
I think there are two types of biases: one bias towards a position on a controversial subject, and another bias towards a philosophical position reflecting a world view. I'll admit a bias towards my own position that Jesus was a historical figure, a minor cult leader, because to me all the evidence points towards that conclusion, and the evidence that doesn't point to that conclusion can be explained away. The latter is where I need to be careful of my own bias. I need to be careful of examining opposing viewpoints fairly and in depth. Unfortunately this leads to accusations that I'm obsessed with mythicism. But if I don't examine opposing viewpoints, I'd be accused of ignoring it. There isn't a way out of that dilemma.
With regards to my philosophical position of being a theist (though not a Christian): I don't think it plays a part in my bias on the HJ/MJ question. I honestly don't care whether there was a historical Jesus or not. Even when I identified as a liberal Christian, I never cared. But there's no point trying to convince people of that.
Biased people can be right. Unbiased people can be wrong. My solution: ignore other people's biases. Ignore your own bias. Keep to the data/speculation and work from there. Stick to the argument based on the data/speculation. Once the accusations of bias start flowing, the argument is at an end.
Statistics: Posted by GakuseiDon — Fri Jun 07, 2024 3:49 pm