And remains appropriately obdurate in her continuing skepticism:

The most important characteristics of the Christian God, as I understand them, are his love of man and his justice. If one were to posit a god who is capricious, ironic, absent-minded, depraved, or completely unknowable, I’d be on board. Any one of those characteristics would comport with a deity superintending the world as I see it. But not the idea, as a Bush administration publicist put it to me, that every one of us is “precious in God’s eyes.”

Let me take a banal example. As I write this, the Los Angeles Times has a small item on a thoroughly unremarkable traffic accident. A 27-year-old man in Los Angeles misread a traffic signal, and drove his car into an oncoming Blue Line Metro Train. He and his sister were killed; his 7-year-old son and his grandmother were seriously injured.

Now imagine that a human father had behaved towards the occupants of the car as our Divine Father did. That is: a) He knew that his children would be mowed down by a train; b) he had the capacity to avert the disaster through any number of, for him, quite simple means; and c) he chose to do nothing. No one would call this father’s deliberate and possibly criminal passivity “love.” Instead, we would deem such a father a monster and banish him from our midst. Yet when God behaves in just this way, we remain firm in our conviction that he loved the occupants of that car, and that each was “precious” in his eyes.

How do I know that God could have averted the accident? Because believers tell me so. At the encouragement of their Church, Catholics regularly pray to saints to intercede with God on their behalf for the cure of sickness or protection from accidents. Such prayers would be nonsensical if God did not have the capacity to answer them. When a believer recovers from cancer, he thanks God for saving him. Ditto when an air passenger misses a flight which subsequently crashes — if he is a believer, he will likely thank God for keeping him off board (without wondering why he deserved a reprieve from death and the other passengers did not). If a hurricane misses a town, believers express gratitude to God for redirecting its course. As I mentioned in my American Conservative article, John Ashcroft credits God for keeping America safe since 9/11 (while holding him blameless from allowing the attack to go forward in the first place).

Um, OK - but we do let our kids play counter strike, and get "whacked". We do let our kids take tests that they are not ready for. (In extreme cases, we do let our kids go to jail so that they learn not to do certain things).

I believe God is our father - he is immortal, we are immortal. Our time here on Earth is very short, basically just enough so that some of us can figure out who we are without destroying any entire galaxies. (I also believe that there is a mechanism that deals with the problems of lives cut short).

The only reason that life on Earth sucks (if it does) is free agency - humans making choices. And without free agency, we would never know who we are - and we wouldn't appreciate heaven, for that matter. Our real life begins when we die, and our limitations in that life are directly coorelated to our performance in this one.

Well, that's what I beleive, anyway...

(One of the funny things I have heard that applies to this: "God is our father. Everyone prefers to think of him as our grandfather that spoils us, but no, he is our father")

There is an imperfect parallel between such reasons for Atheism and Bush Derangement Syndrome.

As the first poster describes, the atheist ignores free will (God's first gift to humanity) and human agency, and decides that if God could right any mistake, or wrong, or evil, he must. And if he does not, he is a wicked God. Since God is supposed to be good and is manifestly not, they refuse to believe in him. (Of course this is only one reason of many that leads some to atheism.)

Bush Derangment syndrome goes like this.

The US is the most powerful country in the world. It can put a man on the moon. Therefore, it (more specifically, the federal government, or Bush) can . . .

-Sign a treaty and prevent global warming and hurricanes
-Prevent tragedies like the Katrina aftermath
-Create peace in the middle east, whether the parties want it or not.
-End world hunger, AIDS, opression, & injustice

Since the US has been imbued with God-like powers, any evil condition existing in the world is the result of failure to act the wicked Bush/USA and is proof that Bush/The USA are the source of all evil.

The parallel falls down in the initial assumptions. The Christian God is believed to be all powerful, but by his own choice limits his ability to act in order to grant us the full humanity of choice--to prevent us from being merely robots.

Why? So we can love, others and him. No matter how clever it is, you cannot love a Sony Aibo robotic dog. You can love a living dog which lives and has free will to choose to bite you or adore you.

Where God limits his own power, the US hater makes a false assumption the the US has God-like unlimited power and resources to act, and act perfectly, in all circumstances. It is a strawman. But this theory does show the basis for much of the America-hatred in the world.

Ah this old argument. "God is suppose to be good so why does he let bad things happen to good people." I'm an engineer not a theologin or a good speller. (I'm also Christian but not a very good one.) This whole argument doesn't hold water if you realize that God doesn't really care how long your earthly life is. We all die. It makes no difference to him if you die as a 2 week old baby or a 2000 year old cyborg. You will eventually die. Christians believe that God has gamed the system in such a way that he can upload who we are when we do die. "Saving our soul from death" as they say. This being said, it doesn't mean that God doesn't care how we live our life. If you are a 2 week old baby he isn't going to expect that you had much say in how you lived your life but he gave us free will (else why would he even make a universe if he could predict every event.) and what we do with that free will matters to him.
In this case there is a man that stupidly gets his family killed by not paying attention to his the dangers around him. He makes his free choice to be stupid and he and his family pay by exiting this earthly existance. If they believe, the bible states that their soul is safely taken care of. If not, well maybe not.. only God knows that one. If however God opened up the sky and saved Mr Dumbass then don't you think that people would start acting like it didn't matter how they acted? "After all I believe so I can't die exceipt by old age!"
He has given us guilds, and assinments and tells us we will be tested (in this life and maybe after) He also gave us the cheat sheet and the answers to most of the test problems so it SHOULD be pretty easy to pass. But he never said anything about making it easy nor does he say that he will save us from bad choices. Just because we have a God that is fundimentally good doesn't mean that he thinks that death as bad.
Just some thoughts during lunch, take it or leave it.

Just out of curiousity, has anyone taken the trouble to actually read the entire essay, or are the commenters just responding to my excerpt here? Because if the latter, it's quite unfair to her.

OK, I read the entire essay. Plus, as a stubborn empiricist, I'm an agnostic, not a believer, so in principle I'm on Ms. MacDonald's side.

But I'm going to disagree that the excerpt does Ms. MacDonald any injustice, and agree with the first few commenters that Ms. MacDonald's metaphysical reasoning is at best that of a modestly competent amateur, as well as entirely unoriginal. It's got so many logical holes and unexamined dubious assumptions in it that it wouldn't -- or shouldn't -- convince anyone not already on her side.

Ms. MacDonald would be demolished in short order by any number of the very powerful thinkers Christianity has had defending it. Even modest stars in that constellation could handle her with ease (Alan Jones, Dean of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, comes to mind as a contemporary who in debate would leave Ms. MacDonald gaping like a fish out of water.)

Plus, she concludes with this gem:

And the arguments for conservative values can proceed on reason alone.

Gah. An adult so naive that she thinks social values of any nature can be imparted or kept notwithstanding adversity by sheer rational persuasion has spent far too much time at ease among books and not nearly enough time among real people (for example) tending to their children as they die of leukemia.

What is it about agnosticism and atheism that they seem to attract only mediocre thinkers? I'm hoping it's merely that a defense of faith offers the greater intellectual challenge, hence appeals more to the vanity of the first-class mind with a talent for disputation.

What is it about agnosticism and atheism that they seem to attract only mediocre thinkers?

Hard to know how this question can be derived from this post. Or do you subscribe to the fallacy of hasty generalization (even granting, which I don't, that Heather is a mediocre thinker)?

Personally, I resent it.

Your comment would be more convincing if you actually directly addressed her arguments.

Hard to know how this question can be derived from this post.

It isn't. The appropriate verb phrase is "inspired by," not "derived from."

Personally, I resent it.

I expressed myself poorly. I meant to say: "What is it about the defense of agnosticism and atheism that it attracts only mediocre thinkers?" I didn't mean to suggest the philosophies of agnosticism and atheism themselves attract mediocre thinkers. To the contrary: they tend to attract superior thinkers in my experience. But their adherents seem to use their abilities doing things other than defending their beliefs.

Your comment would be more convincing if you actually directly addressed her arguments.

No doubt. And if I was trying to convince anyone of anything, I would have.

From her requirements for a god, I could suggest several Pagan religions. Greek Reconstructionist would probably do it for "a god who is capricious, ironic, absent-minded, depraved, or completely unknowable." They have some of each, thanks.

Or she could read up on Loki, who is all of those except absent-minded, all in his own self.

decides that if God could right any mistake, or wrong, or evil, he must.

In other words, decides that we are not His children, but His pets.

And if he does not, he is a wicked God.

...who should be arrested by the SPCM (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Mortals).

Since God is supposed to be good and is manifestly not, they refuse to believe in him.

I've seen this with the overwhelming majority of what I might call "proselytizing atheists," like for example Michael Newdow. It's ego, nothing more. Or in more traditional terms, the Deadly Sin™ of pride.

(Of course this is only one reason of many that leads some to atheism.)

Which is why Newdow's antics were, as I recall, disavowed by many atheist bloggers whom I read regularly. In fact those disavowals opened my eyes to the diversity of opinion among atheists about such things.

"In other words, decides that we are not His children, but His pets."

Not sure what you are getting at here. Most people keep their dogs on a leash and limit their actions. Children, especially as they grow older, are given far more free agency than pets. And in my mind, free will/agency is the issue here.

It seems to me that it is Heather who wants us to be like pets. We are always on a leash. We can't bite others or be bitten. We can't escape into the street and be run over. Of course to be fully satisifed, and since even a dog might bite the hand that feeds it, we must be fully controlled/programmed to do no evil. That makes us robots incapable of choice.

"...who should be arrested by the SPCM (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Mortals)."

LOL

I don't think Heather "wants" anything, other than for believers to be logically consistent, and to recognize that their beliefs as generally stated don't seem to hold water, or be consistent with the way the world actually observationally works.

I doubt if she expects that, though, nor do I.

To those who see God as "stern father":

The most important duty of a father is to cease being a father. That is, to enable his children some day to stand on their own feet and to stop needing fathely guidance. Do you expect God ever to accomplish this -- to be satisfied that human race has grown up, and to leave it to its own devices? If no, then why not? And if yes, then what do you see as criteria for this "growing up"?

Ilya, the answer I believe is yes. The period of time you are talking about is refered to as "afterlife", "heaven", "the millenium", etc. (Depending on the details about which you are refering). I do not believe we are God's first children, nor will we be his last - I think this is a standard method of dealing with allowing kids to become adults in an all-powerful family.

Some of us will go on to become like him. Some of us will learn that we can't control ourselves, and elect a different (but still enjoyable) path. Others will have shown themselves to be untrustable, and they will be "damned" (which means stopped or limitted) - I believe this means happiness but not power.

I guess the simple answer to your question is: the human race will never grow up. Individual humans will.

"In other words, decides that we are not His children, but His pets."

Not sure what you are getting at here. Most people keep their dogs on a leash and limit their actions. Children, especially as they grow older, are given far more free agency than pets. And in my mind, free will/agency is the issue here.

It seems to me that it is Heather who wants us to be like pets. We are always on a leash.

Exactly.

Was there anything in the rest of my comment that made you think you and I are not in agreement on these points?