EXPERTISE
The thought processes of liberal Christian
scholars who uphold the Bible but realize its limitations from human authorship
are not much different. Instead of premises based around inerrancy, their
convictions are often built around an unalterable foundation. While they might
accept that there is a historical inaccuracy in one passage, a difference of
author opinion in another, and a scientific absurdity in a third, the idea that
the Judeo-Christian God never existed is an inconsiderable position because it
conflicts with the foundation that has likely been in place since childhood.
While they believe that mistakes, contradictions, cruelties, and absurdities
are human reflections of an infallible god, they never seriously consider the
ramifications of an infallible god that would allow a great measure of
mistakes, contradictions, cruelties, and absurdities to be his textual reflection.
It is much more sensible to say that a perfect being had absolutely nothing to
do with the Bible, but since they prematurely used their conclusion as a premise,
these Christians will not seriously consider such a possibility. A
dispassionate outlook is an indispensable necessity when in search of the
truth. Religious scholars who began as religious believers lack that critical
component.
It is an inescapable reality that the vast
majority of people who have spent a great deal of time studying the Bible believe
it is the word of God. While stating that 90 percent of experts agree with a
given position is usually a valid point to make, it is a mere appeal to authority
on its own. Should we then at least leverage some credibility to specific
claims based on the position of the authorities? My answer is that it depends.
I am perfectly aware that the vast
majority of experts in the history of the Ancient Near East will back positions
that are beneficial to Christianity–but that is because the vast majority of
experts in the history of the Ancient Near East were born in a Christian
society. The majority of those who will back the Qur’an were born in an Islamic
society. The majority of those who will back the Torah were born in a Jewish
society. We can best predict the distribution of experts on a highly emotional
issue by evaluating biases toward their respective predetermined conclusions,
not by weighing the evidence.
My claim of bias refers not only to the
confirmation bias practiced by the experts, but to the affiliation bias of the
sample as well. People who have an interest in pursuing knowledge of the history
of Christianity are most certainly those who have already been indoctrinated
with the importance of it. If they believe in Christianity ardently enough to
pursue a career from it, they are unquestionably more likely to interpret
evidence so that it is favorable to their preconceived notions. Should it come
as any surprise that the vast majority of experts in any religion believe in the very religion that they study, even
though no religious belief is even close to holding a majority opinion in the
world? Christians make up 33 percent of the world, yet 90 percent of experts in
Christianity probably practice it. Muslims make up 21 percent of the world, yet
90 percent of experts in Islam probably practice it. Mormons make up far less
than 1 percent of the world, yet 90 percent of experts in Mormonism probably
practice it.[i] I could
continue with Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, Shintoism, etc., but I
trust that I have made the point that the scholars long believed in their
respective religions before they ever studied them in depth.
If one wishes to argue that the number of
Christian scholars is disproportionately larger than that of other religions,
we need only remind ourselves that most religions are not in the business of
defending their claims and proselytizing potential converts through structured
argumentation. Hindus and Buddhists generally do not feel the obligation to
convert others or threaten them with eternal punishment for not accepting their
respective positions. The distribution of religious scholars might also
parallel the availability of such studies within each region. Religious
believers in impoverished areas of the world are more likely to be concerned
with feeding their families than building advanced universities for studying
the intricacies of their beliefs using Western methods.
As for confirmation bias, it is clear that
apologists of every religion begin with the conclusion that their scriptures
are true and work backwards to find the supportive evidence. They are not
interested in the most likely conclusion that they can draw from the evidence,
but rather the most likely conclusion that does not invalidate their beliefs. We
can say with unflinching near-certainty that if Christian apologist A were born with religion X instead of Christianity, Christian apologist
A would instead be just as confident
that religion X was the correct
belief. There are countless apologists for every religion who claim to be able
to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that each of their respective,
contradictory belief systems is true. If 90 percent of scholars studying
Christianity agree with a position on a hypothetical dichotomy that favors
Christianity, I would make the bet every time that roughly 90 percent of the
scholars came into the field as Christians. The opinion of such authorities,
who began with a certain conclusion instead of analyzing the evidence to reach
that conclusion, cannot be trusted simply because they are authorities. Conclusions
based upon evidence are important; conclusions based upon evidence that has
been interpreted to support an a priori
assumption are what we should take with a handful of salt.
Rightfully so, I put little stock in the
opinions of people who began studying Christianity years after they accepted
the existence of a talking donkey. If we brought in an intelligent, rational
group of people who were never indoctrinated, who were never even exposed to the idea of religion, and asked
them to become experts in the ancient history of the Near Middle East, I would
be extremely confident that it would be the unanimous
consensus of the group that the Bible is bunk. They would not be subjected to
the centuries of aura and mystique that society has placed on the Bible, and there
is absolutely nothing in the book that would impress critically thinking dispassionate
outsiders. To them, the Bible would be just another book in the mythology
section of the library. You simply cannot trust those with huge emotional
investments to be objective on critical issues.
Not only does the problem of experts with
premature conclusions reach outside of Christianity, it continues outside of
religion. Think of other fields of study that skeptics and rationalists regard
as mythical. For example, consider UFOs. What percentage of people who are UFO
experts believe that UFO sightings are evidence of flying saucer-shaped
vehicles piloted by gray aliens? I have not been able
to find a statistic on the question, if such a study has even been
undertaken, but should we not feel confident that the vast majority of UFO
experts are UFO apologists? People with such interests will naturally flock to
such fields, initiating their studies with the determination to validate their
unusual beliefs, continuing with the notion that seemingly inexplicable
phenomena have radical solutions, and striving to convince people of their
outlandish beliefs. The problem is multiplied for religion because we must
appreciate the much greater impact that society has on reinforcing an expert’s
belief in a personal god compared to an expert’s belief in UFO visits, as well
as the overwhelming elevation of emotion and identity that experts have invested
in religion compared to UFOs.
Just like the biblical defenders who are
prone to practice confirmation, UFO apologists do not pay much attention to
evidence and explanations that debunk their beliefs; they find ways of making
it consistent. Since they are not interested in simple, rational explanations
for sightings–just as religious believers are not interested in simple,
rational explanations for miracles–they begin with the premise that the sighting
is authentically alien–just as religious believers begin with the premise that
the miracle is authentically divine–and mold explanations without breaking their
foolish premise.[ii]
Have you ever seen the pseudoscientific techniques
and equipment used on television shows that delve into the world of ghost
hunting? Like the Young Earth Creationists who inappropriately use carbon
dating on living organisms in an attempt to discredit the method,[iii] these
ghost hunters will determine that unusual electromagnetic fields present in old
houses, typically caused by bad wiring, are spirits of the deceased looking for
someone among the living to avenge their deaths. While this ghost hunting
process may seem foolish to discerning Christian readers, it is no different from
Christian scholars using ridiculous apologetic and hermeneutical studies to
eliminate obvious textual inconsistencies. The answers are obvious, but they
aren’t the answers that they want. In each discipline, researchers ignore the
simple explanation while advancing the interesting explanation that in turn advances
the preconceived notion.
We can say the same for those who promote cryptozoology, gambling systems, mind reading, paranormal
beings, astrology,[iv]
etc. The believers have the desire to become the experts; disbelievers
have no real interest in the matter. Thankfully, you will occasionally find
rationalists dedicated enough to devote some time to explain that glowing
spherical objects in ghostly photographs are just illuminated dust particles,
memories of alien abductions are the result of sleep paralysis, and tales of
vengeful gods who demand to be worshipped are remnants of ancient folklore. These
rationalists, who have studied with great interest but without preconceived
notions, are the ones who offer natural explanations for unusual phenomena.
There is every compelling reason to
believe that average people who take the time to learn both sides of the
debate, and who did not enter with interest in the paranormal, will agree with
the naturalistic explanations offered by skeptics. The skeptic, because he has
no emotional investment in Bigfoot, will eventually conclude that the creature
is based upon myth since the evidence does not support the claims of the
believer. Despite the opinion of the objective skeptic, and with no good
evidence in favor of the existence of Bigfoot, the believer is going to
continue believing what he wants to believe, thanks in part to dubious evidence
and crippled thinking skills. The Bigfoot enthusiast will not listen to reason
because he convinced himself long ago of the veracity of his beliefs.
Otherwise, he will have to accept that he wasted his life on nonsense–and who
wants to come to terms with that?
To someone who has never heard of the
Judeo-Christian God or the American Bigfoot, the nature of each should be no
different. Since no special privilege has been
bestowed incessantly upon either entity, debunking the existence of one should
be no more difficult than debunking the existence of the other. Intelligent believers in each, however, often pose a
problem because they are extremely gifted at coming up with ridiculous
scenarios that maintain their increasingly ridiculous proposals. Likewise,
intelligent apologists are quite skillful at making an argument seem valid when
a critical eye can tell that it is not. I see the solution to this problem, not
as a matter of debunking those ridiculous explanations that believers offer,
but rather as a matter of exploring the best options to make them appreciate
the underlying reasons for their beliefs. Once this is accomplished, the
foolishness of the defense should eventually become apparent. Appreciating the
absurdity of the Judeo-Christian God is a simple task for an outsider;
similarly convincing a crowd who has believed in a talking snake since they
were children proves much more challenging.