So I have to admit that the ASA is biased. But this is not saying that it is wrong, or that it lies. These things have to be determined by what it says.
From post #119
I never said anything about them lying about the science for any reason, much less their religious viewpoint….. so please try to refrain from trying to strawman or misconstrue my point.
You listed Sye Garte’s bona fides as including his association with the ASA.
I said the ASA is a religious organization and pointed out their obvious biases.
The video posted in the OP was Garte at a christian apologist convention.
So, once again…….
I never said anything about them lying.
This is your assumption that bias = lying;
this is a false equivalency.
What bias does is often blind ones ability to apply rationality by distorting their perception of evidence (as you have demonstrated).
Once again:
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior
beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for
emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is
insuperable for most people, but they can manage it, for example, by education and training in
critical thinking skills.
en.wikipedia.org
I have shared this link with you previously.
I strongly recommend that you actually read it make a concerted effort to understand it, and once again, I once again would further recommend your following it up with an introduction to cognitive bias mitigation and critical thinking.
(
Cognitive bias mitigation - Wikipedia)
(
Critical thinking - Wikipedia)
The scientific method was devised as a means of mitigating biases; this is precisely why it is successful.
It demands objectively verifiable and measurable evidence in order to eliminate as much bias as possible.
This is why it doesn’t accept subjective assumptions, interpretation, or “experiences” as evidence until such time as they are objectively demonstrated as valid.
These things are from faith in the Bible and experiences of people.
I could give miracles where there is no known scientific reason.
I could give prophecies that have or are being fulfilled, or promises of God that are happening.
All subject to individual interpretation, possibly misperceived experiences, and unsubstantiated faith.
All of which have been proven to be unreliable methods of determining reality.
The very things that rational thinking and science eschew in order to be as demonstrably and reliably accurate as possible.
That sounds objective and subjective at the same time to me.
This is due to your confirmation bias.
I don't think it could be proven that it was God who did these things however. It does take faith.
Well, congratulations on admitting it is a matter of faith. Why not embrace it as such?
Why then do you attempt to smuggle in a pretense of science?
Could it be to placate your mind by attempting to make your faith appear to be rational?
Or perhaps an attempt to foster solidarity with other credulous believers in order to feel it is at least reasonable so as to excuse your own biases?
