Independence, Objectivity & My Inability to Become an Expert on Anything

I like my religious experts like I like my x-variables: Independent.

And that's where I've got a problem.

I don't have enough time to watch Family Guy, so I definitely don't have enough time to become an expert historian, astrophysicist, philosopher, evolutionary biologist, and everything else that seems necessary to come to a solid, well-researched, conclusive position on the truth regarding the possible existence of God.

However, I can't trust anybody, including historians, astrophysicists, philosophers, evolutionary biologists, and everybody else who seems to know the information I need for a solid, well-researched, conclusive position on the truth regarding God's existence. 

I can't trust them because nobody's independent when it comes to religion, and if you're not independent of a thing, I have to assume you're not objective when you give public support for that thing.

You know how we're not supposed to talk about religion in polite company? That's because (1) no one's independent when it comes to religion, (2) people who aren't independent get pissed off, and (3) it's not nice to piss off polite people (no matter how much fun it is to watch them).

Independence is HUGE in the accounting profession because a financial statement audit is worthless if the CPA firm performing the audit is biased. We'd say the firm is "independence impaired." It's more politically correct.

Independence is like pasties for accountants. Without it we may not be allowed to work.

When I say that no one is independent when it comes to religion, I'm not saying that no one can be objective. What I am saying is that everyone's objectivity is suspect because nobody's independent.

CPAs are required to be independent "in fact and appearance." Independence "in fact" means not being affected by influences that may compromise one's professional judgment. It means having a mind set that allows "an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism."

Most religions — either implicitly or explicitly — do not make room for professional skepticism, let alone amateur skepticism. And a lot of atheists will applaud their fellow atheists for doubting all religious belief, but pounce on them for doubting their atheism. 

Independence in appearance means that you conduct yourself in such a way that a reasonable and informed third party would conclude that your integrity, objectivity, and professional skepticism had not been compromised. 

CPAs have identified several threats to independence. I've restated them as they relate to religious belief. Although these threats may not actually impair your independence, they all impair the appearance of independence.

Advocacy threat — If you actively promote or defend a specific position regarding religious truth, your independence may be impaired.

Familiarity threat — If you have a close, longstanding relationship with a religious (or atheistic) community, your independence may be impaired.

Undue influence threat — If a religious (or atheistic) leader attempts to coerce you or exercise excessive influence over you, your independence may be impaired.

Self-interest threat — If you benefit from a set of religious (or atheistic) beliefs being true, your independence may be impaired. 

This independence crap applies to me, too. I can't trust myself to be objective because — just like everybody else — I'm not independent when it comes to religion. 

I get pissed off about religion sometimes. How does that make sense? I'm an agnostic. How can anyone piss me off about religion? If someone says I'm full of shit about God, I believe I'm obligated to say they're probably right. But sometimes I find myself getting defensive which belies my independence.

A material aspect of why I stayed in Christianity as long as I did was because the switching costs were so high. Everybody's religious switching costs are incredibly high. Whatever your worldview is, it's why-adjacent.* When your worldview changes, everything in your life is subject to change. Everything. 

Changing worldviews is possibly the ultimate of self-interest threats. Therefore, no one is independent. No one can be trusted. Not me. Not you. Not Deepak Chopra.

*I'm talking about your Simon Sinek "why": your nearly-impossible-to-verbalize core purpose.