Now that I've successfully defended my PhD, some people might consider me an 'expert' on at least some topics.

However, as I've progressed through my theological studies, I've become much less willing to trust someone just because they call themselves an expert, or even because they're recognized by others as an expert.

So in this post I want to encourage you to not just trust the experts, but to think for yourself. I'll also suggest some ways that I think you can go about the process of thinking for yourself.

And don't think for yourself just because I said so! Instead, I'd like you to read my argument for why I think you should think for yourself, and then decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree.

The Problem of Trusting Experts

Too many times in discussions on many different topics, I've seen someone offer some expert's conclusion as if that is enough to settle the argument or prove a point. Or, alternatively, I've seen people dismiss a person's arguments simply because that person is not deemed to be enough of an expert.

But either way, if you argue that an idea or fact is true or false based only on someone else's opinion that the idea or fact is true or false, this is to commit what's called the genetic fallacy.1 Fallacies are faulty ways of reasoning, and thus, if someone commits a fallacy, it makes their argument invalid. An invalid argument means that the argument can't contribute one way or the other to determining the truth of the issue being debated.

Now, I'm not saying that all experts are inherently untrustworthy, or that you should just ignore all the experts and go with your own first impression or gut instinct. Expert opinions are useful, because often experts have specialized training and knowledge that we don't have.

However, I think most people today can look around at the world and realize that just because some expert says something, it doesn't necessarily make it true.

This is even more clear when we consider that equally-qualified experts often disagree!

I've been in numerous debates where neither I nor my debate partner were personally experts on the details of a topic. Then each of us pulls out our favourite experts, and we each argue for why our expert should be trusted over the other person's expert. But in the end, neither of us is convinced by the other, and the debate has to end in an agreement to disagree. In particular, this happens when the evidence referred to by these experts is so specialized that it can't easily be understood or interpreted by the average person.

So then what do we do? How can we make decisions if the experts disagree, and if we don't have enough expertise to judge the evidence for ourselves?

The Problem of Vetting Experts

Some might say that we should look at people's certifications and degrees to determine who to trust. If an expert has degrees from a university that's deemed reputable, or if the expert has been certified by some organization, it can make it seem like the expert should be trustworthy.

However, this is just to push the problem back one step. Because who says that those people who judge a university to be reputable or not reputable, or who hand out the degrees or the certificates, or who do the peer-reviewed studies are themselves to be trusted? They're just other experts!

It's the same problem with people who claim to have the authority to fact-check information and judge whether an expert is telling the truth or not. Who says that the fact-checkers who are vetting these experts are correct? Other fact-checkers? Other experts? And the problem just begins all over again.

Even if you get a lot of experts together who all agree, it still doesn't necessarily mean something is true.

For example, all the experts back in Galileo's day would have said that the sun orbits around the earth. Just because they said so, though, has absolutely no power to determine what is reality. Even if every single person on the planet agreed that the sun orbits around the earth, it still wouldn't be true.

Conversely, to argue that someone is not enough of an expert on a subject is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging the potential truthfulness of the arguments or evidence that this person may present.

For example, again, back in Galileo's time, the most uneducated or even completely insane person could have argued that the earth orbits around the sun, and it would have been true!

Today, an even dumber version of this problem of vetting experts occurs when people criticize not just the credentials of who is making an argument, but also what platform is being used to host or distribute this argument.

Just because something is on Youtube or Facebook or Twitter doesn't automatically make it true or reliable, and just because something is on Bitchute or Gab or other alternative platforms also doesn't make it automatically true or reliable. Just because something is in a published book sold at major retailers doesn't make it true, and just because something is posted on an obscure, very 1990s-looking text-only website doesn't make it true, either.

So then what do we do? If neither being an expert, being recognized by others as an expert, or having large numbers of experts agreeing on a fact or idea has anything to do with determining the truthfulness of that fact or idea, do we just give up on ever hoping to know what is true? Or is there some way that we can perhaps sort through the mess and try to figure out what is more likely to be true?

The Solution: Think for Yourself, Keep an Open Mind, and be Humble

In this life no-one is ever completely objective. We're all influenced by our past experiences, our culture, our family and friends, and the people that we've learned from.

However, when it comes to important issues, it's important to try to become as objective as possible. The way to do this is to look at all sides of an issue for ourselves, and to give experts on each side a fair chance to present their evidence and make a good case.

This requires humility, because we can't just assume that whatever position we initially prefer is necessarily true. We also can't assume that whatever we currently believe is automatically true. I've had the experience several times in my life of changing my mind on an issue after I allowed myself to read the opposing point of view and carefully consider their evidence with an open mind.

Of course, how long and how carefully you choose to do your own research depends on how important you think the issue is. That will depend on how serious you judge the potential consequences of choosing a position to be.

For example, I'm not going to spend time carefully considering the arguments of Flat-Earthers. That's not just because I think there's overwhelming evidence that the earth is round, but because ultimately, it doesn't really matter to me. People got through their lives just fine when they thought the world was flat, so it's not a life-or-death issue. I think people who argue on the topic could probably be using their time in better ways.

But when it comes to much more important issues that could have a significant impact on me, such as questions about personal medical treatments, or important theological questions that affect my understanding of God and his offer of eternal life, I'm more likely to take the time to try to research it by reading multiple points of view and considering their evidence carefully.

The Problem of Censorship

However, the procedure of carefully weighing the arguments for multiple sides of an issue can only occur provided that all sides of the issue and their supporting evidence are available to be fairly examined.

Unfortunately, there have always been people who think they have the right to determine what information other people should have access to. They also think they can decide which experts are credible and which experts should be discredited, slandered, de-platformed, have their books burned, be fired from their jobs, be arrested, or even be killed.

This problem is complicated by the fact that if you're a Christian, you likely agree with the idea that all people are sinful (Romans 3:10-12, 3:23, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Isaiah 53:6). That means all people have the potential to be selfish, to put our own interests ahead of the best interests of others, and to lie or mislead others out of that selfishness.

Yes, ALL PEOPLE. That includes me, you, strangers on the internet, our friends, our family, our teachers, our professors, our politicians (especially politicians), the media, the alternative media, scientists, doctors, judges, clergy, theologians, even the Pope! If someone is human, they're sinful (except for Jesus, who is also fully divine).

And, just in case anyone is inclined towards science fiction, any AI programmed by sinful humans is also going to be sinful, since those who program it will program it to behave and put out results in accord with their own sinful biases.

There's no possibility of avoiding sinful people on this planet other than the single person who committed no sin, who said he was the truth (John 14:6). And that's because Jesus is God, and God never lies (Titus 1:2). (Yes, these statements are obviously based on my belief that these verses are telling the truth, which you may disagree with, but we'll get to that later.)

Added to all of this is the problem that Satan is prowling around on the planet like a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8), seeking to kill, steal, and destroy (John 10:10), and Satan is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Satan hates the truth because Jesus is the truth, so Satan and his demonic minions will do anything and everything they can to suppress, distort, demean, slander, oppress, and deny the truth.

In a way, then, one criteria I find very interesting to use to determine what might be true, is to see what views are currently being persecuted, oppressed, silenced, etc. This doesn't always work, but it can be one piece of evidence to add on top of others, especially if there are good reasons why people might want to silence or persecute such views.

For example, why does our culture allow Christianity to be frequently criticized, while criticizing other popular monotheistic religions is seen as taboo? Maybe it's because there's something true about Christianity after all! Indirectly, then, persecution and censorship of Christianity can act as a sort of negative confirmation of the gospel's truth.

However, some people might object to my argument thus far. They might say, "But we can't let everyone run around and spread whatever ideas and information they want without anyone vetting the information! Someone might believe something that's untrue!"

And yes, that's a real possibility. But the benefit of allowing people to say what they want is that we can have an open, honest, and transparent debate where each side is free to bring their best evidence and try to refute the other side(s).

This process encourages further study that helps us sort through complex ideas, refine our arguments and do better research, and might result in us learning new things. Whereas if we preemptively decide which side is right and censor the others, we don't get any of that.

Even worse, because none of us are perfect, there's always the risk that the side we've preemptively decided is 'right' is actually wrong, and we become the bad guys who persecute those who are advocating for the truth. Do you want to take that risk? I don't.

Plus, I don't want to risk having the means of censorship fall into the hands of people with ulterior motives, who could then use it to censor me.

On top of all this, I think that if anyone moves toward censorship to promote their view rather than relying on honest and open debate based on reason and evidence, such a person is basically admitting that their preferred view has lost the argument, and the only tool left in their toolbox is the blatant use of power to oppress their opponent.

Therefore, even if there is a risk that some people will believe things that aren't true, we must allow people the right to disagree and to share their opinions openly without censorship. The alternative is too dangerous, and those who censor information risk ending up on the wrong side of history, and risk facing God's judgment, too.

What scares me even more than simple censorship though is that, once someone becomes convinced that their view is correct and then wants to censor other contrary views, it's not hard to imagine that they might want to stop people from sharing alternative views altogether. In the past, people who thought they were in the right killed the Old Testament prophets, they killed Jesus, they killed the early church Christians, they killed Protestants, and more.

So even though I totally believe that Christianity is true, I would never want to have the power to block all non-Christian views from the internet or burn all books that advocate for other religions, even if doing so might be for people's spiritual benefit. Instead, I think it's better to let people debate, see the evidence for each side, and trust people to work it out for themselves, because then their belief will be stronger than if it is merely dictated from the top-down by "fact-checkers" or "experts".

Never mind that controlling people's beliefs through censorship never works, anyway. If people don't want to believe the fact-checkers or experts, they won't. No one can force people to believe something they don't want to believe, no matter how much solid evidence and good arguments exist for it. (This is why Flat-Earthers are still around).

Even after a thousand years of Jesus' personal direct rule on Earth during his future Millennial kingdom, the Bible says there will be so many people who reject Jesus that their "number is like the sand of the sea" (Revelation 20:8). So people can't be forced to believe anything, no matter how strong the evidence is or how censored the alternatives are.

So whenever someone comes along who wants to control what information you're allowed to access by trying to discredit particular experts or label certain ideas as 'fake news' or 'disinformation', don't necessarily trust them. Look things up for yourself, read all sides of the debate, and weigh the consequences of believing one side or another carefully before making your decision about who to trust.

And of course, you can always pray about it, because God says that one role of the Holy Spirit is to guide us to the truth (John 16:13). But this brings me to my last point.

It All Comes Down to Faith

There is something called confirmation bias, where we tend to believe the experts who say the same thing as what we already believed or what we want to believe, and we will tend to ignore or discount experts who disagree with our pre-existing viewpoints.2

Of course, whether confirmation bias is true could itself be debated. However, I think it's useful to remember that our judgments about who we choose to trust are personal choices, and each of us will come to different conclusions based on how we judge the evidence, and this judgment may be influenced what we want to believe.

For example, a notable atheist named Thomas Nagel has admitted that he simply doesn't want to believe in God. He wrote:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.3

How many other atheists out there are like him, but aren't willing to openly admit it?

Whereas for myself and many other Christians, we would admit that the atheistic idea that the universe has no ultimate meaning or purpose, or that there is no God who is perfect love who will one day bring justice and truth and righteousness to the world is extremely unappealing to us. Therefore, we will inherently trust experts who confirm our beliefs, because we want to support what we already believe, and we'll distrust experts who disagree with us.

Thus, in the end, I think confirmation bias is unavoidable. Even if we try the above method of being open minded and humble while investigating multiple sides of an issue, everyone still has to choose what they want to believe.

Some very noble and courageous people may simply want to believe the truth, no matter what that truth is. That's perhaps the best desire of all, since I'm convinced that honestly and diligently seeking truth will ultimately lead people to The Truth, which is Jesus Christ. But again, this requires that certain ideas are not being artificially suppressed and censored.

So please, let's learn how to agree to disagree, and to accept that there will always be a broad diversity of opinions in this fallen, sinful world. The only other option is to go back to holy wars where people kill each other over differences of belief, or we end up in oppressive societies where authorities censor, imprison, or execute those who dissent from their pre-selected views.

Conclusion

I believe that many things that each of us believe about the world are not actually facts, but are acts of faith.

For example, I have never personally done the observations and calculations to determine whether the sun orbits around the earth, or if the earth orbits around the sun. I trust the astronomical experts have got that one figured out. But I do recognize that although many people would consider the idea of the earth orbiting around the sun as a fact, the fact is, unless they've repeated the experiments for themselves, they're choosing to place their trust in the experts, and they have faith that what they are told by these experts is actually the truth.

This is just one obvious example, but it goes for many other things that we think are 'facts' but that we haven't personally proven. We choose people to trust and have faith in their expertise, and so we accept that what they say is a fact.

So, in many areas of life, we are in the same position as Adam and Eve, having to choose who to trust. In their case, they had a choice between trusting God, or listening to Satan. Unfortunately for us all, they chose the wrong 'expert' to trust, and it had devastating consequences that required the death of God's own Son to solve.

Many of our daily choices over who to trust won't ever be this serious. I've written elsewhere about these issues regarding our choice to believe whether the Bible is fully accurate or not. Our choice of what to believe about Jesus' offer of salvation to anyone who believes in him (John 3:16) is an even more important issue that, if you haven't made your mind up about it yet, you should seriously consider spending the time to investigate it carefully.

But regardless of whether you believe in Jesus or not, I would appeal to you to allow people to have the right to disagree with you, and not advocate for censorship of ideas that you find distasteful. Because the alternative is much worse.

Footnotes:

• 1. "Academic Writing: How to Avoid the Genetic Fallacy", Proofed.com, September 10, 2020.
• 2. Shahram Heshmat, "What Is Confirmation Bias?", Psychology Today, April 23, 2015.
• 3. Annie Holmquist, "An Atheist Explains the True Reason Religion Terrifies Him", Intellectual Takeout, June 14, 2018.