Biased scientists?

[JetLeg]

I am not sure about it, but can it be that scientists are biased when analyzing scripture?

First, instead of considering both hypothesis - that there is a god that inspired scripture, and that it was written by people, they only think of the latter.

Second, they must be afraid that if god exists and wrote the scripture, it obligates, which they would be glad to escape from.

[Mercutio]

Re: first--do you know that only one hypothesis was considered? Perhaps both were considered, and one was supported, the other rejected, by the evidence. (before you dismiss this, I am thinking of biblical scholars who have researched the writing of the bible, not "atheist scientists".)

Re: second--afraid? There are certainly scientists who are religious; do you suggest that they do what they do out of fear and obligation?

[slingblade]

I am not sure about it, but can it be that scientists are biased when analyzing scripture?

First, instead of considering both hypothesis - that there is a god that inspired scripture, and that it was written by people, they only think of the latter.

Second, they must be afraid that if god exists and wrote the scripture, it obligates, which they would be glad to escape from.

First, bias cannot be escaped. Everyone views everything through his or her own lens(es). One notes you did not ask about a particular bias. In favor of or against? (Or neutral--for all I know, there could be a neutral bias.)

Second, it is not well done to analyze any group of people as if it were a homogeneous entity. Does one assume that all scientists (whatever is meant by that vague term) have indeed taken the time to analyze scriptures?

Which religious scriptures do you mean, specifically? All of them? Can we safely assume that all persons employed in any of the scientific disciplines have bothered to analyze the Gitas, Qur'an, Bible, et al?

How, exactly, do you presume to know what anyone thinks, much less every single member of such a diverse and large group as "scientists?" You say "they must be," and "they only think." How do you know what they "must" or what they "only?" Did you ask? All of them?

What's the point of these questions? To show that scientists are ignorant, and that you have all the answers they lack?

[TV's Frank]

Yes, scientists are heavily biased - towards the hypothesis with the most evidence.

[Tricky]

I am not sure about it, but can it be that scientists are biased when analyzing scripture?

First, instead of considering both hypothesis - that there is a god that inspired scripture, and that it was written by people, they only think of the latter.

Second, they must be afraid that if god exists and wrote the scripture, it obligates, which they would be glad to escape from.
As often is the case, Dr Adequate said it best:
What bothers me is that no-one will admit that pigs even at the very least slightly fly. That goes against the general tone of "we are rational, open-minded thinkers".

[Seismosaurus]

Second, they must be afraid that if god exists and wrote the scripture, it obligates, which they would be glad to escape from.

If there is a god and he wrote scripture, I personally cannot think of one single reason why that would obligate me to do a single thing.

Perhaps you can suggest a reason?

[Foster Zygote]

I am not sure about it, but can it be that scientists are biased when analyzing scripture?

First, instead of considering both hypothesis - that there is a god that inspired scripture, and that it was written by people, they only think of the latter.

Second, they must be afraid that if god exists and wrote the scripture, it obligates, which they would be glad to escape from.

One leading Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman, began his studies as a fundamentalist Christian and now describes himself as an agnostic. I think it would be safe to say that he has considered both hypotheses. I consider myself a scientist, not in the professional sense, but in the sense that I embrace the scientific methodology as the most effective means of examining the universe around us. I too was once a "born again" Christian, but as I was gradually exposed to other evidence, and as I acknowledged the veracity of that evidence, I came to the conclusion that my Christian world view was not valid. I think you will find that most scholars who reject the literal interpretation of Biblical scripture are far more aware of the literalist side of the argument than you here imply.

As to your last assertion, that scholars reject the scriptures as literal out of fear of "obligation", consider that this argument could be applied to virtually anyone with whom one disagrees. Muslims can say that all non Muslims reject Islam out of fear that they will be obliged to live by Muslim law. Scientologists can accuse those who reject Scientology of the same thing. Catholics can do the same to protestants. Etc. etc. etc.

[JoeEllison]

I am not sure about it, but can it be that scientists are biased when analyzing scripture?

First, instead of considering both hypothesis - that there is a god that inspired scripture, and that it was written by people, they only think of the latter.

Second, they must be afraid that if god exists and wrote the scripture, it obligates, which they would be glad to escape from.

Why do you think that these are some sort of intelligent comments?

First, there's no evidence for any sort of god, let alone that it inspired any sort of writings.

Secondly, there is no second point until you establish the first.

Here's an idea: why are you so afraid, that you would have to project your fear onto people who disagree with you?

[This Guy]

I am not sure about it, but can it be that scientists are biased when analyzing scripture?

First, instead of considering both hypothesis - that there is a god that inspired scripture, and that it was written by people, they only think of the latter.

Second, they must be afraid that if god exists and wrote the scripture, it obligates, which they would be glad to escape from.

Seems to me that if this god of which you speak, inspired the writers of the bible, he did a pretty poor job of it. Or, he was confused.

Have you actually read the thing?

If you take every word as literal, it's a jumbled up mess of contradictions.

If you tried to interpret it you would end up with a whole host of different religions, all claiming to be Christian!

Oh yea, we sorta have that don't we....

[DangerousBeliefs]

Hi JetLeg,

I was wondering if you know of evidence which supported the scriptures.

From what I understand. The stories of Moses are fictional... the stories of Noah are fictional... and those of Lot... David appears to have been grossly exaggerated... and then the stories of Jesus are at least greatly exaggerated... if not made up.

It's not so much of biased as much as Christian scientists in the 1800s and 1900s started looking into the historical validity of the Bible and coming away wondering if any of it was accurate.

It must have been deeply troubling, especially for the geologists.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Yes, [most] scientists are heavily biased - towards the hypothesis with the most evidence.Good quote, but I had to fix it slightly. There is the occasional scientist (I'm thinking South Korea and the breast cancer study here in NA) that screws with the findings for self interest reasons ....

Charlie (god in a test tube) Monoxide

[DonJunbar]

What scientists go around analysing the Bible? What scientific questions can you ask about it?

It seems to me if a scientist is reading the Bible, he or she is doing it as a person, not a scientist.

[skeptifem]

it seems to me like historians and language scholars would be qualified to examine the bible, more qualified than scientists (well, the sciency stuff in the bible is so obviously incorrect they dont very well need experiments to disprove that part of it anyway).

[Dancing David]

I am not sure about it, but can it be that scientists are biased when analyzing scripture?

First, instead of considering both hypothesis - that there is a god that inspired scripture, and that it was written by people, they only think of the latter.

Evidence to support your two hypothesis or just assumptions?


Second, they must be afraid that if god exists and wrote the scripture, it obligates, which they would be glad to escape from.

Five more hypothesis, any evidence?

Score
hypothesis 7
evidence 0