Jesusgate? A Case Study in Bias

Looks we have a new controversy on our hands, at least as far as many conservatives are concerned. The fuss is over a story in this week's Newsweek magazine. I happened to catch a little of the Hugh Hewitt radio show today, where Hugh and guests were in an uproar over Jon Meacham's, "Religion: The Birth of Jesus - From Mary to the manger, how the Gospels mix faith and history to tell the Christmas story and make the case for Christ." They were calling it the religious equivalent of Rathergate - replete with bias and based upon unsubstantiated evidence - as if their own position was the pinnacle of manifest truth.

Indeed, the reaction to the story itself is a case study in bias. From my reading, I found Meacham's work and his conclusions to be well worth my time. But this is because of my own bias. The story makes the case that the entire story of Jesus' birth is a convenient mixture of historical revisionism and ancient theology. Given my own religious views, it makes sense that I would feel that way. Alternatively, Christian conservatives find this idea patently offensive. It undermines the very core of their faith. Therefore, understandably, they are reacting with venom. But, the fact is that we're both wrong.

If we're to have a true free market of ideas, we have to be willing to not only hear views that oppose our own. We have to be willing to question the validity of arguments that confirm our own biases. We cannot, as so many people do, simply accept as true that which "feels right." As I've said countless times, our emotions do not necessarily have our best mental interests at heart. So, there's work to be done on both sides of this issue.

For the Christians to maintain intellectual credibility, they have to stop crying foul when public entities put forth ideas that conflict with their beliefs. After all, if their ideas hold water, they can withstand scrutiny. (I have long believed that one who wishes to silence the mouths of dissent knows, deep down, that his or her beliefs are built upon shaky ground.) The argument against Meacham's story seems to be that he starts with his conclusion and then recruits experts to prove it - the classic (and flawed) use of a priori reasoning. One of Hewitt's guests, a minister and doctor of theology, claims that Meacham is not a biblical scholar, which apparently means that he is not worthy of considering what he considers. Furthermore, the so-called scholars cited in his text are actually fringe wackos with an axe to grind against Jesus. The collective objective of Hewitt and guests was very clearly to spark outrage that such a story would have even been allowed to run in such a reputable periodical. Their indignation mirrored that expressed at CBS's decision to run the Bush National Guard story. Interesting.

I've noticed what may be an axiom in cultural discourse. If someone goes public with something that damages you and you know you're wrong, you attack the messenger. However, if the new information bolsters your position, you defend it and chastise the other side for not addressing the arguments themselves. When it was the Swift Boat Vets - it was the Dems on the personal attack and the conservatives demanding that the discourse focus on the facts. Now that the conservatives stand to lose, the tables have turned. Somebody needs to grow up.

Meacham's story, as I said, sits well with me. If he just summarized his thesis and never offered me a bit of evidence, I'd be inclined to agree with him. But that's not just because it feels right to me. It's because I've done my own research. I can point to my own body of evidence to back up his assertions. So, you might say I've earned my right to be prejudice on this. However, in the interest of taking the high road, regardless of my bias, it makes sense to put the story to the test. But we shouldn't be too optimistic.

When it comes to religion, it is harder than usual to find preferred explanations (click here for some depth on this concept). We can eliminate a lot of arguments, but we're still left with a few reasonable ones to choose from. That means we have to be careful about what we think we can take from a story like Meacham's. He's not going to prove that he's right - it's impossible. So the best he can do is put forth a plausible explanation of how Jesus' birth actually went down. He makes a few points to build his case, and it's up to us to take him to task. If he fails our tests of logic or credibility, then we must reject his assertions. It doesn't mean he's wrong; it just means he didn't prove his point.

I'll admit that I haven't taken the time to verify Meacham's references, either for validity or credibility. Therefore, for now, the best I can say is that his story sure feels right, which means I have no business endorsing it. My bias isn't good enough. This is a lesson many would do well to learn.