Three columns finally led me, at my philosophy blog, to put together some in-depth refutation of liberal theological mush, as I call it.
I blogged about the first and second separately over there, respectively about the Grand Inquisitor and about ev psych proving the need for religion. But, Maureen Dowd letting her column be hijacked was the last straw, so I took it plus the two previous posts to go in depth about the Ground of Being here.
To me, there's an analogy. Much as I like the Green Party, one can't logically demand that conservatives "support the science" on global warming, then turn around and "support the pseudoscience" on anti-vaxxer claims and such.
Ditto, one can't demand that conservatives be honest about what biology has taught us vis-a-vis fundamentalism and then be less than honest about what evolutionary psychology has and has not taught us about religious belief, and what the likes of Chomsky and Wittgenstein have taught us about the use of language.
Two of the three columns, the first of the two about which I blogged previously, and Dowd's priest, were both writing about Newtown. And, that's the ultimate angle.
Some Facebook dialogue helped me to see more of where I was really
heading with this post, especially vis-a-vis Dowd's priest, who was
writing in light of the Newtown mass shooting.
And, beyond criticizing the Ground of Faith or Christian existentialism, it's a warning shot related to that old Gnu Atheist word "accomodationism."
Sometimes, that's not a four-letter word, but potentially an actual problem for some secular humanists. My answer to that is that secular humanists can challenge liberal Christian as well as conservative Christian theodicy, but in a non-arrogant way. More details on that are at the third link.