Heather Mac Donald has made it her business to complain about
theological impositions upon the conservative movement of late.
After a go-round with Michael Novak, she just wants us Christian
types to know that the faith is quite unreasonable given the bad
things that happen to good people in this world.
Well, thank you, Voltaire. The Christians, Jews, etc. may as
well hang it up.
Mac Donald can't understand how there can be a God when people
die and suffer, not only from the actions of other people, but also
because of natural catastrophes. God looks like a very delinquent
daddy in her eyes. The idea is less ridiculous than thinking there
is no God at all.
There are many problems with Mac Donald's approach. For
example, if it is the case that there is a God and He is
essentially infinite compared to our finitude, then it stands to
reason that we would not be able to fully comprehend Him and why
His universe acts as it does. Mac Donald can't understand God and
thus writes him off. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist and doesn't
have reasons we cannot currently comprehend. "Who has known the
mind of God and who has been his counselor?"
She can then say, yes, but it's simpler to think he doesn't
exist and that we are in contention with the apparent randomness of
natural events. It isn't that simple, though. Mac Donald is a
conservative with very definite ideas about freedom, justice, etc.
Where do those ideas come from? She seems to expect that we would
be persuaded to do things that are right and to abstain from things
that are wrong. If there is no God, why care about any of that?
Why not dismiss it all as sentimentality, find a group of
intelligent and strong fellow travelers, and impose our own vision
of self-gratification on others unable to resist?
She complains that someone kills a conversation when they say
God wants something. But is it any different to say Justice
requires it? She would complain about the first, but not the
second. Why? The truth is that saying God wants something is not
so different from saying Justice requires something. You can still
argue. You can dispute the theology, the reasoning, the evidence,
etc. just as you do with any other debate.
In short, there is no great imposition on the unbeliever when
the believer enters the debate. Christianity, at least, almost
always reasons from evidence rather than brute revelation. The
parts that are brute revelation, like that every person matters and
enjoys an equality before God, is not the part anyone should want
us to give up or stop bringing up.
topics:
Business
