hooberous,
Fair enough.
I was not coming down on YOU that your motive was about a religious agenda. I was trying to propose that we all play this game as objectively as possible, letting the Science do the talking, and that applies to everyone, including me. The article IS useful in terms of the bias issue and peer review, and so, thanks for the contribution.
There are some sources that are at my disposal which I am tempted to use because of some rather cogent arguments, but which, because it includes some religious philosophical elements, I am hesitant to use, lest it be construed that I am demonstrating a bias that is virtually as unjustified as the bias I accuse the scientists of being guilty of at certain times.
I have also wrestled with the problem of being able to utilize such sources if they have a useful contribution to make notwithstanding its religious bent. I have decided to throw such things into the "pot" for discussion, but then supplement that with my own editorial comments that will, for the time being, remove the "religious elements". At least, I will try hard to achieve that.
This may be easier said than done. Science, in its quest for objectivity, cannot allow any notion of "god" being included or introduced into whatever science is investigating, since that would not be considered "objective". There is no observable empirical evidence that can be referred to, and therefore must be excluded from the equation or from the science. On the other hand, what if certain arguments or evidences DO make the case that things seem to be coming down on the side of god, or at least can be reasonably inferred from such evidence? Should we ignore that or dismiss it outright? The latter is what I feel should be reserved for the end discussion, while the former is what should be considered as the body of the discussion, since it is the part that has to do with gathering and determining the scientific facts.
We may be walking a very fine line here. The atheist scientist may be hell bent on dismissing "god" at every turn, at any price, because "god" is unthinkable in terms of any reality modality. That would be his bias. Similarly, the believer that is already convinced that "god" is behind everything may be equally tempted to argue that every piece of evidence serves only to support his position that this is but another "proof" for "god". That would be his bias.
Again, I don't know how successful we are going to be at achieving such ideal, unbiased discussion, but it's worth a try. I have noticed many discussions on quite a few threads on JWD forum where things are pretty much polarized into two camps. The atheists tend to pooh-pooh any point of view that seems to include anything "spiritual" or "providential". They regard "god" as beyond the science, and therefore has no place in the discussion. They say that it relies on belief and opinion, and not on physical proof or evidence. The "believers", on the other hand, jump right in with insults and insinuations hurled at the atheists, denigrading their "godless philosophies and points of view". They find it incomprehensible how atheists can be so blind about the "intelligent design" behind this marvelous universe, and this could only exist if there were "god" behind it all. And besides, God has revealed Himself to mankind thru his inspired scriptures such as the Bible or the Quran.
I suspect that all too often, neither one is truly "listening" to what the other one is trying to say, since they are too busy putting the other side down, often with no less than knee-jerk reactions. Either that, or they are quietly telling themselves "Oh, that's another one of those believers (or non-believers). I'll just ignore that, or move on." This is the kind of bias I would somehow like to have eliminated or at least minimized as much as is humanly possible for discussion purposes, so that we all might benefit from a real learning experience.
Rod P.
