Posted on 12/30/2011 5:48:43 AM PST by Kaslin
I think it's very difficult for any of us to be objective about any subject, especially something we care deeply about, but my objective observation is that liberals tend to be less aware of and less willing to admit their biases.
We see this often, which I'll get to, but first, let me relate how this phenomenon most recently came to my attention.
In a conversation with a saleswoman for online college courses, I expressed my disappointment that the professor of a religion course I was considering for purchase is an avowed atheist. I said that if I were going to spend time studying the subject, I'd prefer the professor share my Christian worldview.
Don't misunderstand. I think it can be profitable to learn what nonbelieving "scholars" teach about the Bible, but the point I want to discuss here is the woman's response.
She maintained that it is preferable, for this largely secular course on the Bible, to have a professor who can approach the subject from an objective, critical and historical perspective, as if a believing professor would be incapable of that approach. But is that true?
Her error is assuming that nonbelief equates to objectivity. In fact, every human being -- and thus every professor -- has a worldview, and that worldview will inevitably influence his perception of the material. Every professor will have made critical intellectual decisions on a multitude of issues in the material, all of which will be influenced by his worldview.
For example, if you don't believe in miracles, you'd be more inclined to discount those verses of Scripture describing miraculous events, from the Virgin Birth to Jesus' converting water into wine to the bedrock Christian belief: the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Nonbelievers might be more receptive to "higher criticism" and the "documentary hypothesis" and thus less skeptical of the theory that Moses didn't write the first five books of the Old Testament. They might be quicker to focus on apparent contradictions in Scripture that critical examination often reveals are not contradictions at all.
A believer in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture will certainly bring his biases into biblical exegesis, but so will a nonbeliever. We cannot escape our biases.
But the woman insisted the secular professor is only interested in presenting the material from a critical and historical perspective. A noble aspiration, I concede, should the professor actually possess it, but nevertheless unattainable. Historians and critical readers have biases, too. They can't help it.
It's just wrong to assume that a nonbelieving worldview is more objective than a believing one. We are all blessed (or burdened) with our presuppositions, and they accompany us wherever we go.
It occurred to me that the woman's argument is analogous to the political liberals' legendary denial of bias. Indeed, many liberals don't even view themselves as liberals. Rather, they are reality- and fact-based creatures. Only conservatives allow their biases to taint their objectivity. Liberals will admit that some conservatives are rational, but to be both rational and conservative, they must be evil. They know the policies they support are wrong, objectively, but they choose to do so anyway -- or something like that.
Evidence abounds: Scholarly studies show that mainstream journalists are overwhelmingly liberal, yet many deny it, and many honestly don't even see the biases they bring to their selection and reporting of the "news." ABC's Christiane Amanpour, for example, denies her liberal biases, saying she "remains in the realm of fact." The Bush haters who deceived themselves about Bush's alleged WMD lies claimed they were reality-based when in "reality" their hatred made them stark-raving mad on the subject. A liberal college professor touting open academic inquiry banned "conservative" materials from class because she refused "to tolerate the intolerable." Members of the man-made global warming cult dogmatically proclaim a consensus despite strong dissent. Environmentalists extrapolate this mindset in their approach to scores of issues, traveling utterly quixotic paths and pursuing devastatingly expensive larks while dismissing skeptics as flat-earthers. Obama constantly refers to his ideas as self-evidently reasonable and Republicans' as driven solely by partisanship, because how could they possibly oppose his reality-based proposals?
As a conservative, I believe that many liberals proceed from good intentions, though I think their consistently horrendous results entitle us to some skepticism after a while even as to their intentions -- or at least to their ability to see past their oppressive biases. I don't believe, for example, that they are racists because their policies harm minorities, though they often do. I don't believe they automatically lack compassion just because their policies spread misery.
Yet many liberals do believe that conservatives are evil, uncompassionate racists because our policies don't fit their self-serving, narrow, shallow parameters of "good intentions." Many leftists are so possessed by a need to be morally superior that they can't abide the possibility that conservatives also have noble intentions. So it is that many who believe they are objective, fair and reality-based are far less so than the objects of their scorn.
I learned a long time ago that you are wasting your time debating a liberal. It is the old line of “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up”. I have a brother who is a retired school teacher and lives in CA. He is a died in the wool Democrat and I learned long ago not to talk politics with him as it is like talking to a wall. Once in awhile, I email him little humorous digs about his party and liberal positions, but his response is usually “mute”. Bottom line is we aren’t going to change Liberals opinions, we just have to outnumber them.
Many leftists are so possessed by a need to be morally superior that they can’t abide the possibility that conservatives also have noble intentions. So it is that many who believe they are objective, fair and reality-based are far less so than the objects of their scorn.
Good article from David. Slightly disagree that the intentions of liberals or progressives (whatever name is being used by them) are intentions of good. After fifty plus years of liberals enacting policy which have harmed not helped society, liberals have a track record. One would have to believe liberals would accept their failures and take credit where credit is due them for the harm, though liberals always have an excuse and say (normally) more of the same failure and harm would have been eliminated if the republicans had not stood in the way.
It puts me in mind of the proverb, "He who wills the means, wills the end."
“Many leftists are so possessed by a need to be morally superior that they can’t abide the possibility that conservatives also have noble intentions.”
Herein lies one of the greatest paradoxes of liberalism… exactly HOW can one portend to suggest they are morally superior when they openly espouse moral relativism or worse, immorality?
I wouldn't say that we should give up on liberals. Many young people are taught to be liberal, but as they mature and begin to really experience the world, they leave liberalism behind. If no one would take the time to explain to them what conservativism is, they might not have that chance to mature.
Nobody (well maybe Anton LaVey and Aleister Crowely) wants to think of themselves as evil or bad.
I belong to an email discussion group that has 3 far left liberals. Try as I might, they would not believe facts if it went against their ideology. Data directly from census reports, the IRS and video clips of speeches, or interviews was not proof. None of it mattered. I gave up trying to teach. Now I do not respond. The other conservatives have done the same. It’s interesting how the libs argue when there are no conservative to gang up on.
You are right, the indoctrinated ones will not change, we need to outnumber them and drive them from power. I’m sure you have seen the You Tube video of the KGB agent in the 80’s explaining this very thing. It’s been on FR many times.
Cheers!
Interesting point. I am reminded of the recent attempts by conservative students to get satirical petitions signed to "redistribute excessive GPA" (you can see some of the videos on Youtube). The liberal students they encountered who refused to sign it literally went into brain freeze when confronted by the contradictions in their "beliefs". They got that deer-in-the-headlights look and usually walked away muttering "it's not the same thing as taxes". But you could see the utter astonishment in their faces that, first, someone would actually challenge their liberal beliefs using reason and logic, and, second, that they might be right.
Having been taught, when was young by my parents, and because of my Conservative background, a realization exists each (including me) is human and humans fail. Being a human one should be more than willing to come forward and say, “I was mistaken, and I made a mistake.” Because of my upbringing I do admit mistakes. Cannot remember the last time I witnessed this or the above quote from a liberal, whereupon a liberal admitted a mistake. Being human, all make mistakes. Liberals must think they are gods, and their attitudes do point out their failings because even not I am morally superior, though sometimes (being human) makes me believe I am (a mistake) when not. Now I’ve gone and sounded like a moderate and that is the worst mistake of all (LOL).
Liberalism is like a speaking/language regional accent. Everyone in lower Alabama has the same accent then a NE Yankee is the weird one. The lower Alabaman’s wouldn’t admit that their thick twang was an accent at all, they were the one speaking “normally”, that dang Yankee talks funny(which is true).
What’s funny about liberals is that they don’t understand the concept of a “worldview” as a lens of assumptions through which all input is filtered and subsequently all conclusions are reached.
Their mindset, I guess, is that what they assume or believe “just is”, and has nothing to do with presuppositions. Since they can’t self-examine and accept that they have said presuppositions, there’s no way to get them to understand that others have other presuppositions.
Others are either “stupid”, “wrong”, or downright “evil”.
Liberalism was introduced to the world with this statement: "you will be as gods, knowing good and evil".
You are correct. The snake in the garden did say that.
It is true. Liberals CANNOT admit that they are mistaken.
To do so puts them on the road to reality, a place they cannot abide.
Axiom: Every sentient being has a religious worldview. It is either a godless worldview or a God-centered one, and neither is religiously neutral in content or consequences!
Corollary: **ALL** schools have religious worldview ( godless or God-centered)
Corollary : **NO** school is religiously neutral in content or consequences!
Corollary: When government owns and runs schools it will establish the religious worldview of the most politically powerful and crush the religious worldview of the less politically connected.
I have been hammered here on Free Republic ( even by conservatives) for my use of the words “all”, “every” and “none”...So?...If anyone has a link to an exception for my statement above please post it. I will be quick to apologize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.