Are Christians More Biased Than Other People?

In the last article I wrote about how the stereotypical portrayal of Christians as stupid or crazy people who hold beliefs that have no basis in reality is false.

In fact Christians (whether they know it or not) have extensive evidence to underpin their beliefs. But because the evidence leads to a supernatural conclusion - belief in the existence of God and the historicity of certain miracle stories - many people reject it as a viable world-view.

This raises the question of bias.

Sometimes Christians are accused of bias in the way they interpret evidence to support their view of reality. Bob Seidensticker (not the Bob mentioned in the previous post!) from the atheist blog Cross Examined makes exactly this claim: That Christians interpret every event and every piece of evidence in light of their pre-conceptions that God is real and that supernatural events are possible.

Seidensticker sees Christians attributing the goodness we observe in the world to God and the evil we see to mankind as a form of this bias, along with a few other examples. And sure - Christians CAN be inconsistent at times. He mentions a group of Christians who had their church levelled by a tornado but who found significance in the fact that three crosses were left standing - an event I'd personally attribute to chance rather than divine provision.

Nevertheless it is the issue of bias that needs to be the focus here. Seidensticker says that "Christians want to interpret or spin the facts to support their preconception. Instead of following the facts where they lead, Christians would prefer to select and interpret them to show how they can still justify their worldview."

The issue I have with this statement is that it seems obvious that many people outside of Christianity are also operating with similar biases in place. Perhaps not Seidensticker himself - he claims to be open to the possibility of God's existence but unmoved by the evidence. But my experience is that there are plenty of atheists out there who claim that the material universe is all there is and that this makes any supernatural explanation for the existence of life and the universe impossible - a preconception they hold prior to assessing any evidence for the truth of Christianity.

Carrying this kind of preconception into an investigation about the existence of God seems very circular to me. To presuppose that a materialistic/naturalistic view of the world is true prior to investigating the evidence for God's existence will invariably lead to the conclusion that God does not exist - not because that is the truth, but because of the bias the investigator holds in advance. This is how bad science is done!

I agree with Seidensticker when he says that we should follow the facts where they lead. We should follow the evidence, not our preconceptions. To completely eliminate bias from the investigation, you have to have an open mind about the existence of God before you begin to examine the evidence. Naturalistic presumptions are no help to the serious seeker of truth.

The biggest reason for this is that if you assume philosophical naturalism (the view that only the physical universe exists) you immediately wipe any potential supernatural explanation of an event or phenomenon off the table arbitrarily. Under a Christian worldview, both natural and supernatural explanations of that event are possible and acceptable. One view is closed-minded to even the possibility of supernatural explanations, while the other view can consider all possibilities with an open mind. The truth-seeker should steer well clear of the closed-minded bias of naturalistic presumptions.

Perhaps to echo Seidensticker's words above, I'd like to say: "People who hold naturalist/physicalist views want to interpret or spin the facts to support their preconception. Instead of following the facts where they lead, philosophical naturalists would prefer to select and interpret them to show how they can still justify their worldview."

The truth is that bias is an issue for both sides of this discussion, Christians don't have to shoulder all of the bias-blame. People who presuppose that naturalism is true are also guilty when it comes to interpreting the evidence on the basis of their bias.

The evidence is strong for the Christian world-view, and if you follow that evidence with an open mind, free from bias, you might even come to agree with me that on the basis of observable features of the universe, the facts of cosmology and the testimony of the historical documents that the Christian faith is not blind, but warranted by the evidence.