Toto

I'm quoting the title of a classic article, which is actually quite favorable to evangelicals.

You can't win.

Thanks for making my point.

eta - Jesus and Mo is my new favorite cartoon.

Riverwind

Heh...cute, if blasphemous, cartoons.

I've heard more than a few atheists rant about their persection in my day, so don't discriminate so against Christians and Muslims!

Riverwind

I'm not trying to win.

I'm simply saying that this article is about evangelicals. Why not one on fixing the biases of non-believers?

Huh?

If your point really is that we should all be able to sit at the metaphorical table in the lofty white tower of academia, then ok. However, there was a bit a invective in your post about Christians an evangelicals, so I fail to see how that is bringing us to the table on an even playing field.

Brother Daniel

Exercise for the student: Try to guess the religious orientation of the person who wrote the following:
ETA: It appears (judging from the profile) that my guess was wrong! Interesting.

youngalexander

Send it to Chris Weimer!

Brother Daniel

If this thread were merely about "bias", then maybe you'd have a point. I can believe that everyone has some bias. Bias is certainly hard to detect in oneself.

But it isn't. It's about prior commitment. This is far worse than mere "bias".

The OP was not directed at Christians in general. It was directed against the kind of Christian that is committed to a particular set of historical claims, and thus is committed to interpreting (read: twisting) all evidence in such a way that it fits those claims. For lack of a better term, Peter used the label "doctrinal Christians".

Here's what I find so funny, or so sad (I'm not sure which):

The door was wide open for the cleverer Christians here (e.g. Layman) to wash their hands of this problem of intellectual corruption. They could have said: "Yes, there are some Christians who are like that. But don't be quick to judge the rest of us. Many of us have found that our Christian faith stands up naturally, without any commitment of will, simply by our faithful consideration of the historical (and other) evidence."

That would have been good enough, for such people to escape the censure of the OP (putting aside questions of whether the opinion in the OP has merit).

But instead, we have (e.g.) post #49, wherein Layman proudly identifies himself as one of the corrupt, apparently without any awareness of why corruption is a problem. Is this a tacit admission that a traditional Christian view of history cannot stand without a prior commitment to it?

judge

But there is nothing wrong with prior commitments. Why should I care if someone has a prior commitment. Surely I am (or we are) capable of of reading anyones work in the light of that.

One just ends up moralising and turning it into some kind of "sin".

Rather than hypothesising the existence of a mythical table which he has power over, why not work towards some voluntary society where only his views are allowable.

Riverwind

As you said, such things are hard to detect in oneself. Unfortunately, "prior commitment" is exactly what the non-religious have as well. Many of them just don't see it.

Layman's a pretty sharp guy, sharper than most here for sure. He saw what I saw, that all sorts of Christians were being lumped into Peter's category (including Layman himself in one of Peter's posts).

Not to mention, I've been seeing the term "evangelical" thrown around lately all over the place as a synonym for "fundamentalist" and protestant (usually Baptist), but that just ain't so. I can't say for sure, but I imagine that Layman would define himself as an evangelical and possibly even a fundamentalist (on some level). My own "profile" is just to keep people on their toes and thinking. I, too, obviously would identify as an evangelical as well as a fundamentalist (on some level). I don't think that means that I can't take an objective look at evidence. That does mean, however, that I'll have faith that whatever the evidence seems to say, all is ultimately well with my beliefs and the few seeming contradictions will be understood in the end, if they even matter in the end.

Pragmatista

I see you picked up a useful argumentation format during your proverbial 40 days in the Catholic wilderness.

My view here is similar to what I think about religious people being free to do science. I have heard it said that a religious person cannot be a scientist, but I have known of counterexamples. The study of any interesting subject needs to be open to anybody. The good scholarship will shine forth, and in fact I could add a Fifth to your list...

Fifth, if doctrinal commitment leads to bad scholarship, it will be all the more apparent if it is seen alongside good scholarship. If it doesn't lead to bad scholarship, then all the better. It may be the rare person who can shelve their doctrinal commitments in order to conduct this kind of scholarship, but they deserve a chance.

Layman

Do you really think I believe my work to be "corrupt"? Do you not recognize when a participant to an argument adopts the terminology of the opponent to make a point? I guess I can see now why some fail to see it when Paul does something similar.

Yes, I admitted a bias. I do not equate that with corruption (Note: Using my own language here.). But to quote myself, "I also feel obligated ... to make arguments I genuinely believe are persuasive and based on the evidence."