Bias and Prejudice

It has occurred to me that there exists a great injustice to the cause of faith in relativist circles. A circular line of reasoning that is, while seemingly logical, astoundingly dishonest:

The good post modern thinker will strive, whenever a stereotype is issued in their hearing, to argue that such claims are falsehoods by the simple virtue that they cannot be truthful in every instance. 

For example, one might firmly claim: "Clearly anyone who smokes pot is an irresponsible degenerate."

To which, the smug, and aware-enough-to-be-wary, intellectual would counter with a fine example of upstanding politicians who once partook of the finer herb, or they might take the course of empathy. Mentioning the cancer patient who prefers this medicinal application over more damaging options available to manage their pain and suffering.

How can you argue with that? They are, in an exact sense, right. Your stereotype is just that.

I must insist though that they are, in a greater sense, frauds. Here's why:

First, let us clarify some terms. A stereotype will be understood to be a popularly accepted generalization about some person or thing. The act of stereotyping will be understood to be applying a generalization to a particular individual. Finally a prejudice is a prior assumption not founded on wide exposure, or rationale, but based upon anecdotal experience with an individual part of a wider party, group, culture, etc. 

Essentially we have an expansion or compression of some claim.

A Stereotype will generally compress the greater trend and apply it to the individual. 

     trend in the group---------applies------------> individual

A Prejudice will expand an individual bias/experience and apply it to a group with which the individual is affiliated

     behavior of individual----------applies---------> absolute about a group

The initial example would be in this sense a stereotype. It is potentially backed by the viable repetition of some action by many members of the group. This is statistically reasonable. If you observe the same action in multiple cases, you tend to anticipate the next case to fall within the same trend. You have outliers, which your humble friend uses to undermine the gross generalization, but nonetheless, there are observable facts associated with many stereotypes, which can be reliably anticipated amongst a majority of members of the group to which the action/behavior is attributed.

A stereotype gets a bad name when one of three things happen. 

1. It is confused with a prejudice, which is the wrong way to go about assuming things, in any case. 
2. Or if the balance of observed instances is in fact not reflecting the greater majority of members in that group.
3. Finally, the stereotype may be used to form a bias against an individual who is then pre-judged by the stereotype, despite being innocent of the general action themselves

Your friend, in their (laughably) 'humble' opinion will only really go after you for the third point. But let us  flip the perspective a bit and see if they desire the same privilege of educating you on your 'bent'

Say for example you claim that there is an absolute God who offers salvation though His Son Jesus Christ, and that with this promise of salvation comes a certain moral perspective on the world that objects to certain actions of your friend.

A common way of beating around the bush with their reply is for your friend to take your individual claim, apply it to the general group of Christendom, then break the group down into their favorite anecdote of hypocrisy, brutality, etc. 

So we have 

individual (you)----stating a generalization about -----------
          -->group(faith)----which is broken down into ------------
                       --->an individual case(bad egg of the faith)--------
   ----to form a prejudice about --------> people with your claim (i.e. you)

In this way they want to object to your claim by applying some prejudiced stereotype  as a justification for them dismissing your statement.(see what was done there? They muddy the waters like a frog trying to escape.) 

Now this line of argument has noble roots. In an effort to avoid prejudice, the good post-modern thinker will strive to point out the good examples in the midst of some negative generalization as well as the bad examples in some overly positive generalization. This allows them to have a balanced view of the world. Therefore it is not surprising that in the face of an individual claim (that is made also by others), they are quick to point out the worst cases to undermine yet another generalization. 

And this is where we flies get stuck in honey. Christendom makes a general claim. Imperfect humans grasp it and follow imperfectly. Yet the happy condition of the good post-modern thinker is that to them: everything is a generalization; and they focus on the individual story or example. Until the individual validates a generalization that is so absolute, so unyielding that it no longer is a perspective, it claims that it is TRUTH. Then they desperately use point three above, to prejudice themselves against truth, in the most unflattering aerobatics of thought you will ever see.

One of the finer barbs of relativism is that it liberates a person so greatly from general trends, that everything becomes a distinct perspective. It is a discourteous slight of hand to then use those perspectives to turn about and make some prejudiced generalization about the group which in spite of itself! offers the greatest TRUTH. That is the cause of many a post-modern objection to Christ, the notion of truth is inexorably bound to absolutes, and absolutes are relevant for every perspective. That is a hard pill to swallow for the good post-modern thinker, and it is why we must as followers of Christ strive to align ourselves with His claims daily. 

So I close with this thought: In spite of the tricks of the frauds we are called to reach in the world, the best case for faith is still by our own example as living and breathing Christians. So I ask you reader: in what ways are you stumbling? With that in mind, how might you be the cause of a prejudice against the great grace of God? May we all pray that we grow in His grace moment by moment. We are not perfect but we can curtail the prejudice, and alongside the Holy Spirit, play a part in turning post-modern frauds, into forever followers of Christ.