Let me pick apart David O'Connor from this Jonathan Bi interview.
He's fallen into Christianity out of some kind of cultural or karmic inertia, settled into it, and then spent the rest of his life studying it.
He seems like the kind of scholar that thinks for pure pleasure rather than truth, with the satisfaction that he already knows the one answer that matters, and now everything else is just a fun bonus. A kind of career.
None of his answers are actually satisfactory, though they are an interesting lens into catholic culture and justifications. Beneath all of them is a subtle, subtle, smug premise that Christianity is obviously the right path, and if one has not been saved, they must have some emotional or karmic block.
He takes pride in being a normal person. In not being strained. In not being "over-intellectual" like those analytical philosophers or like the interviewer. He sees himself as a heart centered family man who appreciates the normal life of sex and steak and relaxed academic discussion.
Really, I have no problems with him. I enjoyed the interview as a space for contemplation. And Jonathan's questions were excellent. But I have to criticize him lest his words go to deep into my mind.
He represents an archetype. The "grounded" but blind academic, who thinks the other academics are over-thinking and need to be more practical and heart-centered.