Critical Thinking, Bias, & Biblical Integration Assignment 1
Critical Thinking, Bias, & Biblical Integration
Assignment
James “Jim” Pressley
School of Business, Liberty University
Since the early days of organized religion, people have claimed to have a secret
knowledge of salvation. According to Markschies (2022), Genesis is often associated with
Gnosticism (from the Greek gnōsis, meaning “knowledge”) and can be traced back to the
book of Genesis. Early Christian churches were plagued with dangerous heresy from
those who converted from pagan religions and even embraced aspects of Jewish
legalism, claiming to know something in addition to Jesus that was required for
salvation, like circumcision.
Critical Thinking, Bias, & Biblical Integration Assignment 2
Paul warns the church of Ephesus, “15See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as
fools, but as wise, 16redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17Wherefore be ye
not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.” (King James Bible.
1769/2017, Ephesians 5:15-17) Paul's letters to the church at Colossae warn them to
think critically about the source of information. When conducting research, ensure that
you do so with reverence for scriptures and heed the warning of Paul. “8Beware lest any
man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (KJV, 1769/2017, Colossians 2:8)
One of the criticisms of quantitative research methods is their reliance on data,
the accuracy and precision of measurements to compile this data, and the statistical
consistency over time. According to Robson (2024), the positivist paradigm has been
closely linked to quantitative research. The positivist notion is that science becomes
credible and possible because every scientist looking at the same bit of reality sees the
same thing. Researchers should be critical thinkers and prevent “Generalization of the
findings sought (usually in the form of statistical generalizability, which requires the
sample of participants studied to be representative of some wider population)” (Robson,
p. 25). Researchers' biases can influence research design when pre-specified in detail at
an early stage of the research process, especially when under pressure from
stakeholders or revenue sources.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) exacerbates ethnic and racial disparities, as observed in
a study by Conner et al. (2021). The Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) shows
how well the kidneys filter blood. According to Conner et al. (2021), the US Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) was using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD)
equation for eGFR. This equation includes a Black race coefficient, resulting in an eGFR
that is 21% higher for Black patients compared to patients of any other race. This is the
exact type of bias that Hussain et al. (2025) sought in their review of ethnic bias in
Critical Thinking, Bias, & Biblical Integration Assignment 3
artificial intelligence health algorithms (AIHA). As we know, data relies on input and
interpretation.
This review should send alarm bells throughout the healthcare community. While
AI is beneficial in many areas, we are still in the infancy stages, and stakeholders in
healthcare must closely monitor the data and look for potential biases, especially for
underserved communities. When the research from Conner et al. (2021) was released
the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center in conjunction with Jesse Brown for Black Lives
(JB4BL) Clinical Committee became one of the first VA Medical Centers to use no longer
an outdated calculator that included race to measure kidney health, and released a
public statement that this is the first of many future changes to remove race-based
factors from healthcare & provide equitable care for all veterans.
In a prospective study by Antonacci et al. (2021), researchers investigated the
presence and impact of cognitive biases (CBs) in 736 surgical cases with postoperative
complications across three university hospitals. Quality officers, working in conjunction
with residents, identified 22 types of CBs and their correlation with management errors
and deviations from the standard of care (SOC). Approximately 33% of cases contained
CBs, which were significantly associated with diagnostic and judgment errors, reduced
SOC ratings, and increased management mistakes.
According to researchers Antonacci et al. (2021), the most common biases
identified included anchoring, confirmation bias, omission bias, commission bias,
overconfidence, and premature closure. The presence of these biases was significantly
associated with increased diagnostic, judgment, and communication errors, as well as a
decline in the quality of care, as rated by independent reviewers. Researchers Antonacci
et al. (2021) emphasized that this study highlights the need for improved cognitive
awareness and education to reduce medical errors.
Critical Thinking, Bias, & Biblical Integration Assignment 4
References
Antonacci, A. C., Dechario, S. P., Antonacci, C., Husk, G., Patel, V., Nicastro, J., Coppa, G., &
Jarrett, M. (2021). Cognitive bias impacts the management of postoperative
complications, medical errors, and the standard of care. Journal of Surgical
Research, 258, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.08.040
Conner, C. K., Jain, B., Khan, A., Laragh, M. L., Lowery, S., Nichols, N., Steffan, J., Weber, J. K., &
White, S. (2021). A step toward health equity for veterans: Evidence supports removing
race from kidney function calculations. Federal Practitioner : For the Health
Care Professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS, 38(8), 368–373.
https://doi.org/10.12788/fp.0168
Hussain, S. A., Bresnahan, M., & Zhuang, J. (2025). The bias algorithm: How AI in healthcare
exacerbates ethnic and racial disparities - A scoping review. Ethnicity & Health, 30(2),
197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2024.2422848
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Colossians-2-
8/ (Original work published 1769)
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ephesians-5-15_5-17/ (Original work published
1769)
Markschies, C. (2022). Genesis 1 and the beginnings of gnosticism. Zeitschrift Für Antikes
Christentum, 26(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1515/zac-2022-0011
Robson, C. (2024). Real World Research (5th ed.). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B0D129XQLB&ref_=kwl_kr_iv_rec_1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
