On April 28th this year, the Tri Cities Atheist Society posted a blog titled Unbiased Opposition to Religion http://tricitiesatheistsociety.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/unbiased-opposition-to-religion/.
Other than the ranting and the ad hominem attacks, the author made a few claims that need not stand unopposed. It wouldn’t be difficult to find something in this article to pick on, although it is difficult to decide which one to begin with. I believe I’ll begin with logic.
- THE AUTHOR CLAIMS TO BE FAIR…
The first indication of failed logic is located at the top. The title of this article as I mentioned above is Unbiased Opposition to Religion. The mere fact that one is opposed to something indicates a bias. The definition of the word bias is: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair; according to this groups favorite source, Google. If one is unbiased, then they are neither opposed or in favor of the subject in question. There can be no unbiased opposition to anything. The statement unbiased opposition breaks the law of non-contradiction which states that a is b and a is not b is false because both statements are mutually exclusive . Both of these claims cannot be true at the same time. To say that one is unbiased=unopposed and is opposed=biased cannot be true about the same subject at the same time.
In the heat of the moment, under the duress of writing such an emotional article, this mistake is understandable. I am positive that the author believes he is unbiased. To him this means he has no unfair notion about religion. The problem is that he overlooked the actual definition of bias. To be bias, prejudice, or discriminate may or may not include unfairness. One can be bias and be fully aware of the evidence of a thing, making a judgment based upon their knowledge of the evidence. On the other hand, if one is not fully aware of the evidence and is unwilling to consider it but shows a bias, then that person may be seen as unfair. It is not the bias that determines the fairness; it is the unwillingness to look at the evidence that determines whether one has been unfair in their bias.
That brings me to the next issue that would come under the heading Unbiased. It comes in the form of this statement, the author wrote: There is NO evidence religion is true.
- ALL EVIDENCE IS NOT CONSIDERED…
I completely understand why someone who has never been involved in debates or discussion with a theist or has never considered religion/theism as reasonable may not have been exposed to some of the evidences of Natural Theology. However, I do not understand how a person who is claiming fairness, has never considered that there may be at least some evidence to back up the claims of theism. This idea alone begs the question about the fairness of the author’s bias. Is this person being intellectually honest? Or are they merely denying all evidence of theism ad ignorantium? Should I take seriously the claim that one has never heard of the Cosmological, Teleological, or Ontological arguments? Am I really to believe that this unbiased but fair person has never been exposed to the Moral Argument or the Case for the Resurrection of Christ?
I suppose that is possible but if one were to make such claims, as this person does, it seems that there would likely be some investigation of the facts prior to the claim, in the name of fairness. This leads me to the conclusion that at least the title of the article is either…
a.An attempt at satire in which the author is actually claiming that he is unfairly bias
b. This person is “blissfully ignorant” of his unfounded bias against theism.
- Either way, the title Unbiased Opposition to Religion cannot be taken at face value.