The absurdity of Michael Novak

Yes, one Michael Novak, apparently trained as a theologian, is claiming in The National Review Online that the 'rational atheists' are blaming his favourite invisible sky fairy (one "God", also variously called "Jehovah", "Jahweh", and "the Judaeo-Christian-Moslem sky leprechaun", depending on whom you're asking) for the natural disaster in Indonesia and environs.

Yep. This is his claim. Apparently because "That is the God that there is true joy in blaming.", or because, apparently, they're actually just trying to annoy him by making him agree with their own alleged belief that "everything at bottom is absurd". See the article here.

And if you're buying this particular bitta Florida swampland, would you also believe that the Catholic Novak is actually blaming the ancient Egyptian god Seth?

'Kay. I really just wrote this to get that line in. That's actually all I have to say here.

Oh, okay: there's also this:

Novak also seems to have developed an interesting idea that nihilism has become pervasive in culture. And fairly enough, actually, I'm with him so far. There is a lot of that going around.

But then he goes on: he thinks the atheists bugging him with that 'your benevolent God did this' taunt are actually, saying this:

My taunter does not want me to deny the reality of God on the ground that the assertion of that reality is absurd. Actually, my taunter holds that everything, at bottom, is absurd. My taunter really wants to show me that I am like him; and that I too am driven to join him in recognizing the absurd at the bottom of all things. He wants to prove that he has been smarter all along, and to watch me have to surrender as he has surrendered. He has given up his faith in reason all the way down, and he wants me to do the same.

-- Michael Novak, Blaming God First, in The National Review Online

To which I say: bullshit.

Novak would, I'm sure, very much like that to be the case. Obviously: because it would put things in the amusing light that the theologian (a theologian being one who studies invisible sky fairies) is the one who has not abandoned reason, while the rational atheist (an atheist being one who makes fun of people who believe in invisible sky fairies) is the one who has "given up his faith in reason".

But no, dearie; nice try, but that's not what's going on here. Let's go back to the first sentence in the passage: "My taunter does not want me to deny the reality of God on the ground that the assertion of that reality is absurd."...

Well, actually, Michael, yes, he probably does.

(I mean, apart from the fact that he'd probably quibble with your rather presumptious wording when you claim he's asking you to "deny the reality of God". Said atheist would probably prefer to say he's "asking you to admit the whole thing's a fairy tale". I mean, really, Mikey. "The reality of God". Pfft. One might as well talk of "The talent of John Tesh". Though I digress.)

Now. I call myself both rationalist and atheist, and I haven't actually made a habit of taunting folk with the old problem of evil thing much. This is principally because my personal view of it is if you smack a reasonably intellectually capable believer with the problem of evil, they're as likely to drop or qualify their belief in their deity's benevolence before they get to reconsidering their belief in the deity itself. And, in fact, there's some logic in their doing so; there's plenty in their own holy books which would strongly suggest their god is only benevolent between temper tantrums.

But the folk who do use the problem of evil challenge do have a point: you do have some explaining to do if your assertions are that (i) your deity exists and (ii) is benevolent, despite the fact that (iii) 150,000 people just died rather horribly (with more yet to come, sadly), for, apparently, no particular fault of their own. Your assertions in that case, are, in fact, absurd, and it's reasonable enough to point it out.

That's all the rational atheist is saying, sir. Not that "everything at bottom is absurd". They're saying that you, specifically, are absurd.

And, might I add, becoming less coherent by the column inch.

Now I suppose I can't quite claim to speak for all rational atheists. But I have read and do know a fair number of them. And I think the views of one Richard Dawkins are pretty typical. I quote, from his his piece in The Guardian a few days ago:

Not only does science know why the tsunami happened, it can give precious hours of warning. If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety.

-- Richard Dawkins, Letter to the editor, in The Guardian

That, I'd say, illustrates it pretty well. No, my dear obscurantist, rational atheists do not believe that the universe is absurd. We believe it makes a great deal of sense. Early warning systems work because it makes sense. Things like this don't happen because of the actions of senile, vicious gods. They don't happen because the world is crazy, or out to get us. They happen because plates move. The results, yes, are tragic--in this case, almost beyond compare. But there's nothing 'absurd' about it.

So come on, Mike. Enough with the misdirection. You want to go off on your silly 'what do you know of compassion--mah big sky daddy's all about compassion' assertion (his next gambit), fine, be my guest; it's a grand old tradition (and is also, I might add, rather absurd of you). But don't go claiming the atheists "have abandoned reason" just 'cause they've got some uncomfortable questions for you to answer. That's just not cricket.