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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 29, 2011, 22:12 (4835 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
>...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.
> -What I meant by that is, you have to radically reinterpret sacred texts if you're going to make them fit into the world we now have some knowledge about. Yours, David's, and my own respective paths don't really place much of anything at all upon sacred texts, perhaps with exception as cultural histories. -In regards to the question of chance; I think about it epistemically. If I'm asked which one I like better in this light, I have to say chance. The reason why is this:-In contrast to the Nordic myth, where Audumnla licked man out from the salt, we have an incomplete tale. It's the incompleteness that's the rub: The difference between the two, is that Audumnla tells us everything about how man came to be. But epistemically... we can't verify it. -Abiogenesis on the other hand, barely knows where its going. So why lean towards it? Because realistically, it's all we have. It's the only one that we can apply tools to, the only one that gives us... something truly justifiable. Sure. Say someone figures out how to do it. We won't know if its the way. But that really won't matter anymore will it? We'll have an epistemically complete answer. -So if you ever wondered why I lean materialist, this is why. Because it comes down to what we can epistemically justify. We cannot justify Audumnla. We can justify abiogenesis. (Note justification for me does not equate to knowledge, or the resolution of a question to an answer: We're talking purely about how well we can justify a particular claim.) -> 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.
> -The problem as I see it here in the US, is that it's all too often used exactly in that way--as a weapon. It's not as overt as it is in some Muslim countries--sometimes. Attorney General John Ashcroft spent $8k of taxpayer money to cover a statue. The entire evolution controversy here in the states, is precisely funded by a religious minority intent on Christianizing the entire Government. (Named are ID proponents who are active in this "cultural reawakening--all of them famous.") This is the main reason David draws fire from atheists that don't know what he's about at first. -> 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!-I'm an experienced reviser... I had a good English professor that demanded (and read) 5-6 drafts of every paper I wrote for an entire semester. It's helped me as a programmer too. (Writing good code is as much about communication as it is about making machines do work.) -But I've never written something to be published before. I'm sure I'll probably go bankrupt getting an agent to get it out.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"