Biased Factbook Information

I don't mean to start any sort of theological argument here, but it would be great if Logos could allow users to customize the sources observed by Factbook. Sometimes, the information provided is a bit dogmatic when it shouldn't be.

Take a Factbook search for the word "Hell", as an example. The definition at the very top says:
"According to biblical teaching, hell is the state where those who do not have faith in Christ are consigned to suffer eternally."

As you may know, there are many Christians that do not hold to the view of eternal conscious torment, which this definition states as an absolute undisputed fact. Many would argue that "according to biblical teaching" that is not the case.

I thought that perhaps changing my book priorities would make a difference, but I haven't had any success in my tests; either when adding Theological study sources to the list, or rearranging book priorities.
I asked in the forums, and was told this is indeed a problem, and should be submitted as a bug.

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Bug

Factbook

Comments

Here is another example: Do a Factbook search for "Sons of God". The resulting definition is:

"A group of heavenly beings who married the daughters of man and bore children with them."

I happen to agree with that statement, but I also know that many Christians have a different view of this passage. As much as I agree with this definition, I believe Logos should not be in the business of impossing dogmatic doctrine, especially on difficult passages that have varied interpretations. Please consider either eliminating the top definition function, or allow users to customize it's source.

MJ. Smith

I personally don't want to have to customize my source. I want Logos to provide neutral definitions as many dictionaries and encyclopedias do.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1390077#Comment_1390077

I somewhat agree. It would be better if they selected a truly unbiased source, but my guess is, that is what they thought they did when they hard-wired the Lexham Bible Dictionary as the definition source.
From that viewpoint, I would rather either be the one in control of the source, or have the top definition removed. I think it is hard to argue that the current state of that feature does not pose a problem when it comes to difficult topics or passages.

Andreas Roemer

I agree with the opinion that “Logos should provide neutral definitions.”

However, it would be helpful if there were a user area in the fact book where I could make my own comments on entries.

I have now created my own A-Z index in my notes, where I add exactly such additions. I would like to see these in a separate area in the fact book, because that is where they belong in “my” Logos fact book.

It is difficult to do justice to all theological currents in a fact book, and every consideration is a difficult one. There are excellently curated entries and, depending on the denomination, also less good entries. The fact book serves as a starting point for my own research and provides a very good initial overview that can be obtained quickly and intuitively. With a user field for each entry, it would be perfect.

MJ. Smith

@Andreas Roemer I like your approach. I suspect that Logos has trouble recruiting a broadly educated staff for data development. They have some who clearly know the big picture regardless of their personal beliefs. But from some of the quirks as to how religious language is used, I think some know only the language of their personal beliefs.