This is why we have others check our work, to eliminate the effects of bias. How do we check our work when it comes to the magical world of religion?
(snort)
having others check out our work does anything BUT eliminate the effects of bias. In terms of publishing and peer review, bias is simply confirmed; that is, getting something peer reviewed is, partly, to see if one's own views fit it with the bias of one's peers.
Scientists have been dealing with this for...pretty much ever. All you have to do is 'google' 'scientists who were right but not accepted,' or search terms to that effect.
Take, oh, Alfred Wegener, for instance. He proposed (and published, when he could get someone to do so) the idea of continental drift.
.....................which wasn't accepted until thirty years after he died, and people were arguing about it even then.
Or, er. Semmelwiess? He of the handwashing, whose ideas were so completely rejected that he died, having been beaten to death in an insane asylum? Coley, whose work in the very beginnings of immunotherapy were rejected in the 1890's?
Or Gregor Mendel, or Harvey, or...Marshall, who finally, after years and a whole lot of opposition, kept claiming that ulcers were caused by bacteria and not by stress.
No, 'bias' is a part of the process, both in science and in religion. As one can see, the consequences of bucking that bias can be very similar. Religious ideas that buck the system tend to result in charges of heresy, and imprisonment and death. In science, bucking the bias results in ruined careers...and as in the case of Semmelweis, possible imprisonment and death.
Scientists ARE biased. Very much so, just like theists. The trick is to realize that and to get around it. The trick is to...not pretend that bias not only exists, it's...the elephant in the room.
For both 'sides' of this debate.