Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, August 29, 2011, 12:46 (4835 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: I would still consider myself an atheist. What keeps me from that last step? Only that I truly recognize a desire within myself for something more. And this was the desire that I couldn't discuss while I carried the label of Atheist. Because if you're an atheist in today's culture: that's it. You're done. You're silly (if not an idiot) to wish that there was more to this life than this crude matter. So much of my link of religion in the latter years of my life, has been to try and find ways to justify it. And without completely rewriting the history of all religions, this has proven nearly impossible.-I really can't see that a desire for something is justification for believing that it might be possible. That's putting carts before horses. Of course none of us can be entirely neutral, but my own atheism was put into question initially by my inability to swallow the idea that chance was capable of creating an amoeba and then turning it into a human (in those days, we took the amoeba to be the paradigm for primitive life forms). Subsequently, like yourself, I began to think more deeply about those elements of human activity that seem to defy material explanation, and I also read copiously about the less dogmatic religions (I too found Buddhism particularly attractive, though I would now hesitate to call it a religion) and also about the so-called paranormal. The four years I spent in Ghana ... a very different culture from our own ... also opened up new horizons. Even in those days, I don't think I was motivated by a desire for "something more" so much as a desire to know the truth. It probably wasn't until I reached my thirties that I came to the conclusion that I would never know the truth. Decades later The God Delusion kick-started me into writing my agnostic response and opening this website, so the original motivation seems to be as strong as ever! I would have thought that your discussions with David and myself alone would have shown you that you don't need to rewrite the history of all religions. You only need to go on doing what you are doing (often quite brilliantly, if I may say so) ... namely, weighing up the implications of our human experiences and the explanatory options. But if you can honestly say that the combination of chance origins and wholly material sources of seemingly immaterial experiences provides an explanation you find convincing, then you may as well call yourself an atheist.-MATT: My other problem has been in how to justify faith. A common defensive wall for religious people, has been that faith (and hope) are necessary for humanity. I don't argue with hope, but I don't agree that faith is something that can get us there... in what context, faith? How is faith helpful, and in this day and age, how is it NOT anything but evil?-Some of the religious people I know, or have known, positively glow with faith that God is loving and there is a purpose behind everything, including their suffering. This faith has enabled them to cope with what for me would be unbearable tragedy, like the loss of a child. They are also kind-hearted people, who go out of their way to help others. I share your scepticism towards their faith, but it is absurd to ignore its benefits for them and for the people who know them. I agree with you that faith is not necessary for humanity, whereas hope is, but for many people they go together, and I see nothing evil in that except when faith becomes a weapon of attack instead of a vehicle for hope and empathy.-MATT: I still await answers for this... and yes dhw... I've resumed writing my novel...-Delighted to hear it. This is probably presumptuous on my part, as I don't know how experienced you are in the field, but I would urge you to finish it, and remember that what you write is not final. Once it's finished, you can rewrite whatever you're not happy with. Take a tip from Orpheus and don't look back till you're out of there!