One of the dearly lost practices in America today seems to be that of critical thinking when evaluating news articles, social media posts, and other sources of information. Bias is everywhere, yet many of us don’t see it when we are reading. I find particularly that people don’t notice bias if it aligns with their own viewpoints. I found it particularly troublesome when evaluating writings and assignments from college-level students as a teacher. Even in upper-level science classes, many science students didn’t seem to be able to clearly recognize bias or misinformation in either news posts or science articles.
Bias is everywhere. I am biased. You are biased. We all have opinions and world-views that clash with each other. There’s nothing wrong with being biased in and of itself. But what I would like to see is a greater attempt at recognizing bias and determining whether a claim (whether scientific or media claim) is backed by data. Has the author of the claim considered all of the facts and all of the possibilities? What are their biases that I should be aware of? Is it possible to look at the same set of facts that the author is looking at, yet come to a plausible alternate conclusion?
Let me give an example. In my last post, I spoke of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and during my research I came across an article (see here) that discusses the development of this very old Sumerian text. Within the Epic of Gilgamesh, there is a flood story that is quite similar to the Biblical Noah’s Flood (with the exception of character names, and the reference to multiple gods as opposed to one God). Read the author of this article’s analysis of this:
“The Akkadian version of the text was discovered at Nineveh, in the ruins of the library of Ashurbanipal, in 1849 CE by the archaeologist Austin Henry Layard. Layard’s expedition was part of a mid-19th century CE initiative of European institutions and governments to fund expeditions to Mesopotamia to find physical evidence to corroborate events described in the Bible. What these explorers found instead, however, was that the Bible – previously thought to be the oldest book in the world and comprised of original stories – actually drew upon much older Sumerian myths. The Epic of Gilgamesh did likewise as it is a compilation of tales, no doubt originally passed down orally, which was finally written down 700-1000 years after the historical king’s reign.”
So to summarize, this old version of the Epic of Gilgamesh was found by archaeologist’s who were attempting to find physical evidence to corroborate events described in the Bible. And they found an old text that references a global flood. However, the author of this article claims the logical conclusion to the similarity of Gilgamesh’s flood to that of the Bible is one of two things:
- The Biblical Flood account is actually a re-telling of Gilgamesh’s story and came directly from it. Gilgamesh’s Flood is the original flood story.
- Both stories are re-tellings of an older story, and both have been changed over time.
However, these aren’t the only two options as the author of the article insists. Logically, there is a third option. The Bible is an accurate telling of a global flood that really happened. The significance of this flood to all peoples post-flood was such that they also recorded and re-told versions of the flood story. If you google “flood myths” or “flood stories” you will see that many cultures have a flood story around the world. But you cannot logically conclude that the Bible version cannot be the accurate telling of the story. This claim by the author is biased, and comes from a point of view that all these old stories must be myths, the flood probably didn’t happen. OR that if the flood happened, there is no way that the Bible could be an accurate telling of the flood account.
Well, I disagree. I think the Bible is consistently corroborated by archeology and a host of other scientific evidence. I am biased… because I have a different worldview. But I know that my third option that in opposition to the author of the Gilgamesh article can’t necessarily be dismissed. It is also a logical option, and I acknowledge that it fits my own bias and worldview. But there is no direct evidence that can prove that the Biblical account of the global flood isn’t the true and accurate one. If anything, the fact that the oldest existing story/text discusses an event that is ALSO discussed in the Bible seems like further proof that the Bible could be true. The account of the flood is corroborated by these other accounts, not the other way around.
These types of misinterpretations of information are everywhere, and I think I may just have to write more posts that illuminate them. It is so important to think critically when we read information, and to use our critical thinking skills to determine what is true.