Heather MacDonald and the Oppression of Atheists

As noted in the link above, MacDonald first generated attention when her essay appeared in a collection of ruminations on the future of conservatism in The American Conservative magazine. It is not my intention here to "fisk" (do bloggers still use this oldie?) the original article nor attempt to follow the back and forth of the argument as it bounced around the blogosphere. But I do want to make a few comments about this little jeremiad.

First, it is worth pointing out that in the midst of a lot of confusing verbiage and sophomoric arguments there are a few nuggets of truth. A discussion of whether the Religious Right holds too much power within the GOP, or how best to manage a coalition that includes dedicated Christians and secular agnostics, for example, might be interesting topics for discussion. I might disagree with her about the answers, but the topic is a useful one

Few conservatives or Republicans would disagree that both sides of what might be called the "Religious Divide" need to work together for the coalition to work. Unfortunately, the language and tone that both sides use on occasion causes disagreement and even disgust. This is, in fact, what seems to have motivated MacDonald to "come out" so to speak.

When asked recently what motivated the original article she responded:

I wrote The American Conservative piece out of frustration with the preening piety of conservative pundits. I attended a New York cocktail party in 2003, for example, where a prominent columnist said to the group standing around him: "We all know that what makes Republicans superior to Democrats is their religious faith." This sentiment has been repeated in print ad nauseam, along with its twin: "We all know that morality is not possible without religion." I didn't then have the courage to point out to the prominent columnist that quite a few conservatives and Republicans of the highest standing had no religious faith, without apparent injury to their principles or their behavior.

She also noted this in the AmCon article itself:

Conservative atheists and agnostics support traditional American values. They believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and deferred gratification as the bedrock virtues of a prosperous society. They view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law-abiding children. They deplore the encroachments of the welfare state on matters best left to private effort.

Without getting into the complex argument about whether religious faith is a necessary component of morality, or whether the atmosphere is as unified and as oppressive as MacDonald seems to indicate, I think we can agree that religious conservatives can come off as over-confident, condescending, and even anti-intellectual on occasion. In an age of political correctness, and at a time when the media seems intent on portraying Christians as dangerous loons, however, it is also understandable that some people of faith might be defensive and easily irritated. This can be a tough topic.

So if MacDonald's point was simply to remind those on the right that not everyone who shares their political, or public policy, views shares their faith, it might have been worthwhile. Finding common ground for an increasingly splintering conservative movement seems like a worthwhile project. To achieve a majority, and to change policy, conservative will need all the help they can get.

But MacDonald's tone and her odd accusations were not aimed at this laudable goal. Instead, she chose to throw out a few age old theological questions and act like she proved faith is irrational. As the debate has played out her arrogance and ignorance has only increased. And all the while she has shown no evidence of having studied the issue in any detail or having approached others to better understand where they are coming from.

MacDonald's original article was far from a coherent criticism of religious faith, but basically it simply raised questions about God's sovereignty and the "Problem of Evil." Anyone who has ever had a late night dorm room discussion on these issues will find MacDonald's comments familiar.

In that same interview noted above, MacDonald continued along in a similar vein:

Around that time, I had started noticing the puzzling logic of petitionary prayer. What was the theory of God behind prayer websites, for example: that God is a democratic pol with his finger to the wind of public opinion? Is the idea that if only five people are praying for the recovery of a beloved grandmother from stroke, say, God will brush them off, but that if you can summon five thousand people to plead her case, he will perk up and take notice: "Oh, now I understand, this person's life is important"? And what if an equally beloved grandmother comes from a family of atheist curs? Since she has no one to pray for her, will God simply look the other way? If someone could explain this to me, I would be very grateful.

The best, and most obvious, response to this was offered by one of MacDonald's frequent interlocutors Michael Novak: "if Heather "really" wanted to know, she would look up some good books on prayer, on which there are thousands."

And this is at the heart of my annoyance with MacDonald. Why the continued assertion that she has raised intelligent challenges to faith when all she has done is throw out a few rather common chestnuts about God? Why spout off about a subject she obviously knows absolutely nothing about? It is one thing to say that your perspective deserves acknowledgment as a part of the larger coalition; that success requires working together to achieve common goals despite very different first principles. But it is another thing entirely to go around spouting off sophomoric and incoherent arguments and then claim that reason alone can be the foundation for conservatism.

Here is MacDonald again:

I was ignorant and naive enough that somewhere in the back of my mind, I think, I might actually have assumed that presenting what strike me as pretty strong empirical arguments against the claim that God is just and loving, say, would end the matter. And I was unaware of the depth of commitment to the idea that religion is the source of values and that conservatism and religion are inseparably linked. For me, conservatism was about realism and reason.

What? She offered "pretty strong empirical arguments against the claim that God is just and loving"? Where? It as if she ignores the entire history of theology and apologetics and imagines that she just discovered that bad things happen to good people; that prayer is a difficult topic; that not every question has an easy answer; that people of faith often fail to live out that faith well or intelligently.

The irony is that she is substituting assertion for argument and arrogance based on ignorance as reason while castigating religious conservatives for supposedly doing the same thing.

It might come as a shock to MacDonald but people have been thinking about these questions for as long as man has been on the earth. In fact, writers smarter and more talented than MacDonald have written volumes on these very topics.

A few moments reading any of Alvin Plantinga's work should be enough to dissuade MacDonald from thinking her rather tired challenges offer much in the way of new insight. His work is also a reminder that MacDonald's seeming belief that faith and reason are in opposition is unfounded.

Is it too much to ask that when a public intellectual challenges and insults the beliefs of millions of people and bases that challenge on "realism and reason" that she have cracked a book or two on the subject? Or that she show evidence of having thought about the matter more deeply than a college student at 2 AM arguing with his buddies?

Put aside the theology for a second, does MacDonald reveal any signs of knowing the history of the conservative movement? Nope. Any intelligent discussion of the conflicts along these lines that National Review faced in its early years? Any discussion of the differing viewpoints of traditionalists versus libertarians versus fusionists on the question? Not really.

And the reason for this is a fundamental disagreement about what conservatism is and means. Russell Kirk's list of ten foundational conservative principles starts with this:

(1) Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human—in divine justice. At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems. The wise statesman tries to apprehend the moral law and govern his conduct accordingly. We have a moral debt to our ancestors, who bestowed upon us our civilization and a moral obligation to the generations who will come after us. This debt is ordained of God. We have no right, therefore, to tamper impudently with human nature or with the delicate fabric of our civil social order.

In contrast, MacDonald asserts:

So in the American Conservative piece I wanted to offer some resistance to the assumption of conservative religious unanimity. I tried to point out that conservatism has no necessary relation to religious belief, and that rational thought, not revelation, is all that is required to arrive at the fundamental conservative principles of personal responsibility and the rule of law.

I think this is at the root of our problems. When MacDonald speaks of "conservatism" she doesn't mean the conservatism of Burke or Kirk or even of thinkers like Frank Meyer or Wilmore Kendall. She means "personal responsibility and the rule of law"

For MacDonald solving public policy questions simply requires empiricism and a basic commitment to responsibility and the rule of law. Based on her research and study of the issues, the resulting answers place her on the Right side of the political spectrum. What angers her is that she must share this side of the divide with people who come to their opinions in a different way and that this group of people seems to be the dominant force. She is an oppressed minority. And in the way of all such groups, believes that greater respect for her way of thinking would make the world a better place.

So what we have here is not fresh insight but an all too common phenomenon: an urban, East Coast, agnostic/atheist annoyed by the true believers. She is frustrated that so many of her smart writer friends aren't fooled by all this religious rubbish but she can't turn on the TV or listen to a politician without getting a lecture about religion. MacDonald is simply echoing the complaint of elite thinkers from time immemorial: why can't the masses free themselves from the dead hand of superstition and worship the goddess Reason like I do?

The answer is quite simple. A number of people have used both reason and faith to embrace religion. They have come to believe that their faith is actually true in a capital T way. Many of these same folks believe that their faith also has important implications for public policy. Since it can be argued that these very people make up the largest single voting block of the GOP, party leaders and organizers tend to structure arguments that appeal to and motivate this group.

Obviously, religious faith and conservatism are not synonymous but there are important historical and philosophical connections between the two. And given the current connection between conservatives and Republicans, the same can be said politically.

So, if Heather MacDonald wants to decouple these two things she is going to have to offer more than just her own hurt feelings and a few imagined "gotcha" theological questions. A passing familiarity with theology and a basic grasp of the history of conservatism would be a good start.