Bias is the Problem we all have but we can make the best of it and reach accuracy and often do
You will be told by some that if believers in religion are biased, non-believers are biased too. If that is so, we must reduce the bias as much as possible. We need our outlook to be challenged. The person who desires the challenge is the one whose deserves the most respect and admiration for her or his beliefs.
You can be biased in your belief and it can happen to be right. All bias is bad and if we see good effects these happen in spite of bias not because of it. It has nothing to do with making the bias good. If we are all biased, we must ask ourselves which bias might seem to be the best and the wisest to have under the circumstances. But at all times, we must strive for the freedom that being unbiased brings.
Rather than talk about good and evil we must talk about good and mistaken good. This is less frightening and more centred on reality. Whoever does what we call evil always offers reasons for why he or she thinks it is right. They are mistaking the wrong kind of good for the real kind of good. Religion needs to deny that God wants us to suffer the way we do so it says we abuse our free will and do harm. They need evil to be more than a mistake but something vile, something that is able to bring unexpected harm to us. This is an attempt to create a bias for this view of evil is nonsense. It is an attempt to harm the sinner and maybe get the sinner to harm herself or himself. It is founded on baseless accusations. To amplify the harm one does to a person that way is scandalous. It is simply abusing the victims' predicament to build religious discord on it.
Religious bias is heavily dependent on miracle tales and the wish for miracles to be true.
Jesus said his miracles were signs that God was with him and fully
sanctions the accuracy of his ministry.
Consequently, the Church
assumes that any miracle that contradicts it is a lie or mistake even if the
evidence is stunning.
David Hume assumed that any miracle wonder that
could be taken as contradicting nature is a lie or mistake but said belief is
warranted if the evidence is of good enough quality. The evidence must suit
the size of the claim made.
Even if a miracle does not contradict
nature, it is a problem that we cannot prove it does not. It is as
epistemologically bad as one that does.
Which side then is the
ideologue? Which side is the fairest?