Memory And Writing: Part Two

A closer perspective shows the sign within surrounding details; setting, context.
Such is the case when deciphering the sign of the Gospel and its historical accuracy.
What is written grants a visual image when historical methodology includes all content.

Content that scholars find objectionable when considering the Gospel is prefaced by certain accusations.

To name just two: bias from religious institutions; largely opinion rather than evidence-based historicity.

The same measuring stick can be used to show a bias and ignoring of evidence from the atheist or irreligious scholar.

However, what I've found when the opposing side of the argument makes their summaries of the subject... they add a much more compelling conclusion.

Not every "religious" person is blinded by their bias, but efforts an objective approach.

Same with those thinking themselves as irreligious.

When we look past labeling the belief or stance of any particular scholar (or if that scholar is able to not use such labels... which are fallacies) is when a clearer picture appears.

Unless such terminology is noticed as part of their argument (thus identifying fallacy and their bias), even its absence doesn't mean their work is neutral.

The better writers can portray their argument with neutral effort, while keen readers can still pick up ideological leanings.

The best readers are able to accept sobering facts and neutral (or biased) opinions despite their own conclusions or that of the source.

Objections should be welcomed.

Questions kindly fielded and graciously responded to.

Where pettiness exists, or contention is the response to questions or objections, there you find very poor reasoning, very hollow support, and likely holes in logic.

It is when exploring objections that fallacious arguments are revealed, or illogical and irrational conclusions reveal dismal cognition.

Ideological wrangling saturates popular cultures and mainstream societies.

This is why often times scholars seem to work and exist as a silent minority rather than the 'common knowledge' promoted from a populous pedestal.

Silent meaning not that their works are censored, but rather ignored... or like a stone that grants great discovery, left unturned.

Historically, religious institutions have influenced the writing of history.

This is true regardless of the kind of religion promoted or supported by government or popularly held by people.

Modern science finds its origins in religious institutions, since religious institutions were the only source of teaching outside of the wealthy class.

The religious leanings of the earliest scientists can be said to have clouded their ideas, yet their fact-based (or what is concluded by observation and experimentation) ideas persist to this day.

Religious ideas are often times based in myth, legend, and suspicion... but not all of them.

In the purest sense of the idea of religious thought, every scholar is rubber stamped in a religious vein.

Why and how so?

As I've quoted in past articles, I find M. Scott Peck's definition of the term 'religion' very clear and all encompassing.

His view and definition is that every human being has their own specific religion, or manner in which they define themselves and the world around them.

Whether their views and definitions of themselves and the world (their religion) includes a God or several 'gods' or no such concept, is a secondary matter.

It is their current mode of thought that is their religion.

Thus, every scholar (or human being) holds a particular 'religious' bias... and writes (or thinks and perceives) according to such a slant.

This shouldn't be seen as something 'bad' or detrimental, but rather an opportunity to learn how others see themselves and the world.

It is an opportunity to love one another, be open to others, and discuss our perceived differences.

My particular 'religion' teaches me to love everyone else regardless of how they view me, and regardless of their ideas.

My religion teaches me that all things begin in and end from One.

Whether another mind agrees with me or not is besides my obligation to love and serve them, to treat them as I would like them to treat me.

Where I fail, my humanity is revealed.

But wherein I shine, there is the One which draws them also to Him.

So one could argue I too have an inherent and blinding bias.

I stand accused of such bias.

Why?

Because I to am often blinded by His light... and I fail to precisely put into human words higher ideas.

Continued in Part Three.

Return to Part One.