Last week, New Mexico pastor, Howell Scott, wrote a social commentary bemoaning what many of us in conservativism view a senseless act of leftist obsession with controlling free speech. The occasion was the firing of media analyst and self-described Liberal commentator, Juan Williams, for his “insensitive remarks” about Muslims and airlines. Scott sums it up well:
With the firing of Juan Williams…we are witnessing the continued assault on our First Amendment freedoms by radical Islamists and their liberal elite friends in the media and government. I knew that any direct or overt criticism of Islam (even the radical kind) would eventually be considered offensive and off-limits..Who knew that not just our words, but even our feelings would be considered offensive to Islam?
Williams’ release from his NPR contract seemed a fairly straight-forward abuse of what Thomas Sowell dubs “verbal virtuosity,” one form of which is verbal cleansing. And, while others—especially leftist apologists for the Liberal intelligentsia—agreed with and defended Williams’ dismissal, I hardly expected a different response >>>
On the other hand, to hear Boyce College Dean, Denny Burk, offer his commentary is another matter entirely. Make no mistake: Burk appears to bemoan Williams' firing just as do many others like both Scott and I. However, it is the reason behind the firing which stands in stark contrast and serves as the occasion for Burk's commentary on the non-existent nature of objectivity. Note what Burk writes in his Monday morning post “Juan Williams and Objectivity,”
By now you’ve probably heard about the flap with Juan Williams…,Voices from the left and the right have denounced the firing as unfair… I think the dust-up is a good opportunity for all of us to be reminded about news reporting and the myth of objectivity (bold mine)
After favorably quoting another, Burk again insists:
There is no such thing as objectivity, and it ought not be set forth as an ideal for reporters. Whenever a journalist purports to be “objective,” I write them off as self-deluded, unprincipled, or both (bold mine)
Initially, one is tempted to wonder if Burk’s claim itself is an objective claim about the non-existence of objectivity. To make such a categorical claim—no such thing as objectivity exists—appears to ooze finality about it, an indisputableness against which no rival proposition may redress. A rather hefty claim were one to ask me, a claim which is strikingly similar to what we normally describe as an objective truth claim. That action "A" ought not be set forth surely sounds authoritative, truthful, conclusive, and yes, even a bit objective.
In addition, if no such thing as objectivity exists, does God have any claim to objectivity? Granted Burk clothed his commentary in human attire:
If you’re a warm-bodied human with a functioning brain, you are going to have opinions about things. Reporters can’t escape their humanity, so the quest for objectivity is futile
Futile indeed. If objectivity is non-existent as Burk claims, pursuing the non-existent is most certainly considered a colossal waste. Yet Burk’s conclusive commentary did not leave himself a door through which to walk toward the direction of divinity's possible objectivity. After all, if no such thing as objectivity exists, then God’s view cannot be objective either, now can it? Is it possible for God to bear a quality which does not exist in reality? Does not exist period?
Even more problematic is the implication Burk’s strange proposition has for both divine inspiration and biblical preaching, both of which are, like journalism, clothed with human garb. Instantly one is reminded of one of the oft repeated objections from biblical errantists: since the biblical authors were human, they erred for to be human is to be erroneous.
Hence, try substituting within the categories of Burk’s statement as follows:
If you’re a warm-bodied human with a functioning brain, you are going to make errors about things. Biblical authors can’t escape their humanity, so the quest for inerrancy is futile
And, just how many of us have heard this mantra from convinced errantists? For both Burk and biblical errantists, then, to be human is either erroneous or non-objective. Neither is hardly equipped to argue biblical inerrancy. Why? Because of fallible human authors for different reasons. For errantists, because humans cannot not err, and for Burk, because humans cannot not be non-objective.
In addition, imagine the preacher standing up with the Word of God and boldly, confidently, but by no means "objectively” declaring “Thus saith the Lord.” Better and surely more consistent* with the non-existence of objectivity would be, “Perhaps saith the Lord!” or “Maybe God said!” or “The Bible could mean” or "The gospel may save!" I realize this sounds so radically different from what Denny Burk wrote. However, I’m only teasing out what seems to be implications of an unguarded but nonetheless categorical proposition—no such thing as objectivity exists.
Burk concludes “[objectivity] ought not be set forth as an ideal for reporters.” Revealed here is Burk’s premature anomaly. Just because one does not—or even cannot--obtain 100% objectivity does not mean one should not strive for greater objectivity any more than the poor redeemed sinner who does not—or even cannot--become 100% perfect in what the Bible morally demands should not strive for greater obedience.** Moreover, not reaching a certain height or standard--whether moral or epistemological--offers no evidence against the existence of a perfect standard for either.
Interestingly, Burk says while journalists should strive for fairness by scrutinizing their reporting and examining their biases, for Burk, the keys to good reporting are “self-knowledge and integrity, not objectivity.”
And just what criteria will the journalist use which determines “fairness”? Is there a source outside one’s worldview perspective which can lend assistance to the journalist dedicated to being fair? Indeed obligated to being fair as his or her integrity requires? How would one know if the criteria was itself fair? Wouldn’t one need even another criteria to judge whether the criteria for judging fairness was fair? And, believe me, this quest for criteria to judge criteria for judging criteria regresses to what philosophers call infinite regress (think of the redundant "Energizer Bunny").
The fact remains when one speaks of being “fair” is not one speaking of being objective, objectivity in some sense? Not in its absolute sense or in the same sense we speak of God being objective or the sense in which infallible biblical authors were objective, any more than we would think of ourselves obtaining the degree of moral Otherness (i.e.Holiness) our Lord obtained, or the degree of inspiration to which the prophets and apostles were privy. Nonetheless, we do aim our moral pistols high on the holiness target as the NT requires. Could it be we are to aim just as high for objectivity in observation skills rather than claiming the high standard doesn’t even exist?
Again, to be fair and even to know ones self assumes a source of knowledge exists outside ourselves by which to judge both ourselves and our fairness. Is this not itself a quest for being objective, Dr. Burk?
We think it is. We think it is.
With that, I am…
Peter
*it’s very hard to tell what value consistency between two propositions would bear in a worldview where objectivity did not exist. Is is possible for consistency to exist if objectivity did not exist? In some ways at least isn’t consistency between propositions an objective test to determine the truth of propositions?
**of course, I'm assuming objectivity actually exists as a standard in the same sense moral perfection exists as a standard
"Just because one does not—or even cannot--obtain 100% objectivity does not mean one should not strive for greater objectivity any more than the poor redeemed sinner who does not—or even cannot--become 100% perfect in what the Bible morally demands should not strive for greater obedience."
This is the money-statement of the whole post. Right on Peter. Renew my subscription to your blog.
Posted by: Darby Livingston | 2010.10.25 at 12:19 PM
Darby,
Thanks bro. And, where should I send the invoice? :^)
Grace, my friend.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.10.26 at 07:40 AM
Not to mention we'd best scrap the whole trial by jury thing, as, goodness knows, 12 folks cannot be objective about the accused and the facts.
And just think of what this does to every election the SBC has ever held.
Good post.
Posted by: boB Cleveland | 2010.10.26 at 01:17 PM