![[Comments]](/nb//themes/Default/comments.png "3 comments")
(3) Thu Feb 24 11:20:59 MST Why even try???: So, yesterday I was talking with a couple of friends about The Da Vinci Code and I mentiond that it was anti-christian. I got the same response that it was anti-catholic but not anti-christian. This is the probably the forth time that I have gotten that response from different people.
Perhaps it is just me, but wasn't the book saying that Jesus's divinity was created for political purposes by Constantine in order to pacify the pagan citizenry? (To name just one instance in the book.)
Also, we had a lively debate in my english class about bias in writing. The assignment is for us to write a <i>review of literature</i> (I will write on Affirmative Action) and that I am supposed to inject a little bit of subtle bias. The reasoning is that everybody has bias anyways, and the trick is to disguise the bias in a cleverly sophisticated analysis of weaknesses of the research of the opponent. These social scientist think thay have a handle on the hard truths, but how can they be credible when they claim cultural relativism from a universally objective pedestal. Their conclusions are contradicted by the very premises of those conclusions.
I almost think that this is almost dishonest. I want to do a fair review of all the research that has been done on the topic, (mainly because I myself am torn because of the great merit of both arguments and the supporting research of both sides). Furthermore, there are some things that I believe which will not be borne out by scientific research (i.e. resurrection of the body).
Furthermore, I am not a "randroid" objectivist, but I do think that it is possible to come to the truth in at least some areas. To say "everybody is biased" to me is like the abusive husband saying "well, nobody's perfect" in excusing his ill-temper. Both true, but the newtonian bias that the NASA scientist had when they sent a man to the moon was only centimeters away in the end from the Einsteinian relativistic ideal. If you are going to the grocery store, thinking in terms of relativity is hardly worth the time because the Newtonian paradigm is a far more useable tool.
I think we can reach a certain degree of objectivity and impariallity. The world isn't perfect, and everybody does have some sort of prejudice, but should we not make an attempt to eliminate those personal impartialities? Can we ever attain a just society? Is the rule of law just some nice idea that we will never actually attain, or justice another opiate handed down from those who happen to be the strongest and nothing more?
As for me, I would like to think, along with Keplar, Newton, and Einstein, that we can in some way come to know the mind of God. In terms of religion, I think that this desire is even more attainable.
Well, I am not going to edit this, so hopefully I was clear and didn't make too many mistakes in putting my thoughts down.
