My exams start the day after tomorrow, so I doubt if I will get much writing done in the next month. Today though, I came across something and I just had to post it.
A while back I was reading Moreland and Craig’s “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview”, and I stumbled upon an interesting topic very relevant to popular discussions about religion. I’m sure many of us heard people say stuff along the lines of “Look mate, this religion (or lack thereof) deal, it’s no more than the personal choices and beliefs of people. There are no proofs or evidences or anything for these things. They are constructs of the personal biases, and men will always have differing views because it all boils down to prejudice, personal predisposition toward this view or the other. So this quest for the “one true religion” or whatever is essentially misguided.”
Most of the time, I think this tendency is a result of the intellectual laziness of the individual and not any well thought-out rationale. We’re not supposed to judge the hearts and minds of people though, but if it is indeed the case, then their view itself is based on some sort of bias, and hence kind of self-refuting. This aside, apparently this view is an essential component of postmodernist philosophy. Here’s how the authors explain the postmodernist stance [page 146]:
“Postmodernists also reject the notion that rationality is objective on the grounds that no one approaches life in a totally objective way without bias. Thus objectivity is impossible, and observations, beliefs and entire narratives are theory laden. There is no neutral standpoint from which to approach the world, and thus observations, beliefs and so forth are perspectival constructions that reflect the viewpoint implicit in one’s own web of beliefs…”
Here’s how the book responds to this objection (note: the authors are Christian, hence the Christian references) [page 150]:
“As a first step towards a response to this claim, we need to draw a distinction between psychological and rational objectivity. Psychological objectivity is the absence of bias, a lack of commitment either way on a topic.
Do people have psychological objectivity? Yes, they do, typically in areas in which they have no interest or about which they have not thought deeply. Note carefully two things about psychological objectivity. For one thing, it is not necessarily a virtue. It is if one has not thought deeply about an issue and has no convictions regarding it. But as one develops thoughtful, intelligent convictions about a topic, it would be wrong to remain unbiased, that is, uncommitted regaring it. Otherwise, what role would study and evidence play in the development of a one’s approach to life? Should one remain unbiased that cancer is a disease, that rape is wrong, that the New Testament was written in the first century, that there is design in the universe, if one has discovered good reasons for each belief? No, one should not.
For another thing, while it is possible to be psychologically objective in some cases, most people are not psychologically objective regarding the vast majority of the things they believe. In these cases, it is crucial to observe that a lack of psychological objectivity does not matter, nor does it cur one off from presenting and arguing for one’s convictions. Why? Because a lack of psychological objectivity does not imply a lack of rational objectivity, and it is the latter that matters most, not the former.
To understand this, we need to get clear on the notion of rational objectivity. One has rational objectivity just in case [My interjection: “just in case” here means “if and only if] one can discern the difference between genuinely good and bad reasons for a belief and one holds to the belief for genuinely good reasons. The important thing here is that bias does not eliminate a person’s ability to assess the reasons for something. Bias may make it more difficult, but not impossible. If bias made rational objectivity impossible, then no teacher- atheist, Christian or whatever- could responsibly teach any view the teacher believed on any subject! Nor could the teacher teach opposing viewpoints, because he or she would be biased against them!
By way of application, a Christian can lack psychological objectivity regarding the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus and so forth, and still have and present good reasons for the empty tomb, the reality of God and the like. Rational objectivity is possible even if psychological objectivity is not present, and this is what makes civil debate, rational dialogue and the development of thoughtful convictions possible. When a Christian, Sharon, for instance, tries to present objectively good reasons for a position and is greeted with a claim of disqualification on the ground of bias, the proper response is this: Tell the other person that she has changed the subject from the issue to the messenger, that while the Christian appreciates the attention and focus on her inner drives and motives, she thinks that the dialogue should get refocused on the strength of the case just presented. Perhaps at another time they could talk about each other’s personal motivations and drives, but for now, a case, a set of arguments has been presented and a response to those arguments is required.”
What I find particularly awesome about this is the distinction made between the two kinds of objectivity, and hence the two kinds of bias. The postmodernist (or the random internet junkie who doesn’t have a clue what postmodernism is but advances a similar argument) is confusing psychological bias with rational bias, and he seems to suggest that since the religionists are psychologically biased (which is true), it must be so that they have no rational objectivity in believing what they believe either. This is patently false as the author points out, psychological bias doesn’t render rational objectivity impossible, just difficult. So denouncing the rational case for something merely on the basis of the possibility of psychological bias is unfounded.
A lot more could be said about this of course, but I think for a basic level, this passage alone suffices.
muslimatheists.wordpress.com 