I must confess to being more than a little befuddled by the sheer naivete of some biblical scholars when they venture out into areas beyond their field of expertise. A case in point is Ben Witherington III, as brilliant a New Testament scholar as they come. His work refuting the Jesus Seminar and other exercises in pseudo-scholarship has been indispensible. He is certainly not one to be sold a bill of goods by a bunch of second-stringers voting with their colored beads. So, it is nothing short of mystifying that Dr. Witherington should be extolling the virtues of Michael Moore's propganda film, Sicko. My first impression, upon reading his glowing review, was that he was being tongue-in-cheek. But he wasn't.
Witherington, of course, is not alone among scholars whose unquestioning acceptance of ideologically driven secular propaganda (from both the left and the right) seems out of character for so careful and thoughtful a mind. It is an eccentricity which defies explanation. But show me a brilliant scholar without an eccentricity and I'll show you someone who is neither brilliant nor a scholar.
People who are genuinely expert in one field often have developed that expertise at the expense of a more general education and judgment. The problem comes when they don't recognized that. Scientists, in general don't do religion or world politics well. Theologians don't do science or secular politics well. Secular humanist don't do science or religion well. In most cases, they don't even know the basics, and yet insist on acting as if they are equally expert.
ReplyDeleteA few months back, a site which I enjoy and respect for theological issues had a posting from the author on the nature of nuclear weapons. My reply, as a PhD physicist with a background in nuclear fusion, was that what he had written was the equivalent of a scientist posting about religion, and talking about the 10 apostles, 12 commandments, and the 2 members of the Trinity. It was really that bad.
That's a good part of it. But I think, also, that Dr. Witherington is motivated here by a misplaced sense of moral indignation over the price of health care in the U.S. Price and affordability are morally neutral propositions. The market dictates the price and, quite often, it is manipulated by the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance (How about a documentary exposing the way certain lawyers are getting rich off of frivolous medical lawsuits?). Health care service is generally available to anyone who needs it, regardless of whether or not they can "afford" it. If I'm not mistaken, hospitals are required by law to administer emergency care to everyone, even if they can't pay the bill.
ReplyDelete