There’s an interview with Leo Behe, son of Michael Behe, that has just been published by the Humanist and is available online. Several blogs have commented on it. Since Leo Behe discusses some of the issues that have arisen here (and were unfortunately deleted), this interview might be something we would like to discuss.
In brief, Leo Behe was raised a catholic. But he has since become an atheist.
Here are a couple of quotes from the interview, which connect them to discussions that we have had here:
I believe that a sound moral structure can be created by humans and for humans. The desire for happiness and the abhorrence of suffering is innate in each one of us. We need only acknowledge that our actions affect those around us and can cause happiness or suffering. Relegating such a vital section of philosophy to sacred texts (which were themselves written by men) seems, to me, extremely dangerous and detrimental to our species.
and
I regret that the word “atheist” is necessary in our society, because it leads to misconceptions about atheism (that it is a belief, or a religion, etcetera). However, as it is necessary in America where only about 15 percent of the population claims no religious affiliation, I do call myself an atheist to make the distinction. The word describes my lack of belief. As for my beliefs, however, I would consider myself a naturalist and a humanist. I believe that humanity has much more potential than many of us realize—and much more responsibility as well. Such a field as ethics, for example, relies on us—it does not rely on God. If we can admit that nobody is guiding us or telling us what to do and we embrace our potential, as well as the fear and uncertainty that come with freedom, we’ll be capable of great things. But we must first realize that these are our decisions to make; if we don’t step out of our comfort zone, we won’t truly realize our potential.
I do urge people to read the full interview. It will be worth your time.
Yes, a very articulate young man. Take that, Chris Doyle. 🙂 Behe Snr. is obviously not the martinet that some have suggested (or at least I have the impression that some have suggested)
Ha! Good stuff, even though Big Behe is still an IDiot.
BTW – Does believing in Junior Behe make me a Behetheist?
Behe, in his photographs, looks like such a gentle person. I’m relieved to see evidence that he has been a good parent. With umpteen children, it’s a good thing.
On the other hand, Leo is (or was) banished to the basement so as not to corrupt his siblings:
That reddit thread is quite interesting, though I didn’t read it all.
He writes well on his blog too. Comments are unmoderated!
Those comments by Leo Behe on reddit are appalling. Mamma and Poppa Behe come across as intolerant ideologues, entirely in keeping with the tone and content of Poppa Mike’s apologetic writings. It’s a tribute to the resilience of the human spirit that a brave person like Leo Behe can evolve from that kind of familial primordial ooze.
I read it a bit differently. They could have disowned Leo and thrown him out of the house. But they still allowed him to stay there. I don’t agree with how they reacted, but I don’t think it was quite as bad as you suggest.
In a way, they were admitting that their religion cannot stand up to scrutiny, and that the only way to maintain it is to lock out all disagreement. That’s quite an admission.
I believe it is much worse behaviour than a first glance would suggest.
Yes, they let him stay, but they are using him as an example to their other children to show what happens to someone who doen’t toe the line, and that is that you will be shunned by your family.
That is exceptionally cruel.
Toronto,
Considering the earlier comments at “Reddit” pre-date the “Humanist” article by almost a year, and looking at what he says about his father in the article, I get the impression that the shunning was not permanent (or effective!).
I wonder if the younger Behes may react in a similar way to Ricky Gervais hearing a remark from his older brother?
Link
(Probably it’s just as well embedding videos is not allowed in comments.)
Alan,
I still consider the shunning itself to be cruel. It’s also an example to the younger children that shunning is something that is acceptable.
It shows that thinking for yourself is rebellion and will not be tolerated, unless of course your rebelling against evolution. 🙂
And most likely counterproductive. Kids are more likely to take their cues from siblings and peers than from parents.
What they have been taught is that you can’t be honest with the parents.
Perhaps I should rescind what I said about his parenting. He obviously panicked. Not a good move with young adults.
Shunning is not only cruel it is unChristian, at least according to what I was taught about about Christ’s life and works when I was being raised as a believer. He made a point of reaching out to the least fortunate, those who were spurned or shunned by society at large. Shunning is also evidence of fear: fear of contamination, fear that your own faith is not strong enough to withstand the challenge of alternative beliefs and ideas.
Yes, I see that as unChristian. But then I see a lot of what Christians do to be unChristian. That’s particularly true of American fundamentalist Christianity.
I agree with that. And it can’t work. In the Internet era, it becomes impossible to shut out alternative ideas.
Of course I like your website, but you have to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling issues and I find it very bothersome to tell you. On the other hand I’ll definitely come again again!
The recent comment by xbox looks like spam to me. It makes no useful comment, and the purpose seems to be to link back to his site.
I tried marking it as spam, but that does not seem to work even though it is a reply to my topic.