Michael Ruse notes and rather generously comments on Leo Behe’s public debut as an atheist. Young Master Behe seems like an engagingly quirky homeschooler, though I don’t think that his views on religion actually yet rise to the level of being interesting. Indeed, I suspect that much of the attention he receives derives from the fact that he is his father’s son.
Like Ruse, I don’t think that the apostasy of Behe fils should be regarded as a paternal or parental failure. It is, rather, evidence (for those who need it) that homeschooling needn’t be a form of brainwashing.
At the same time, I wish for Leo Behe’s sake, and for the sake of the intellectual odyssey upon which he has embarked, that he wasn’t receiving so much attention. It stokes the vanity from which we—sinners, all—are not free. And it may lock him into the jejune positions to which his youthful rebellion has led him. Stated another way, it may prevent him from honestly seeking the truth, as opposed to industriously seeking to “refute” what he doesn’t now believe.
September 9th, 2011 | 2:49 pm
I am slightly perplexed by the usage of “jejune” in this post–aren’t most Truths, in some sense, jejune, or boring, or full of ennui–and that that is why most Truths are so often ignored: because it’s easier to ignore that which is boring?
So should Christians care if an athiest happens to “lock him[self] into the jejune positions to which his youthful rebellion has led him?”
September 9th, 2011 | 3:38 pm
Thank God Monica never abandoned her jejune Augustine.
September 9th, 2011 | 5:02 pm
Would it be “youthful rebellion” if a young man of the same age from a family of atheists converted to Catholicism?
September 9th, 2011 | 7:44 pm
(1) being a theist does not necessarily require having a belief in the “infallible” origin of the bible.
(2) losing “trust” in people is irrelevant to a particular proposition’s veracity.
(3) i was once a high schooler with “deep thoughts.” my advice to young behe: get out of your head and go volunteer at the local soup kitchen.
(4) can design inferences ever be made? if young behe stumbles across mt. rushmore without knowing anything about its origin, can he conclude anything about its origin?
(5) logic is “common sense.” get rid of logic and you get rid of all meaningful thought.
(6) anscombe has already refuted hume’s is/ought gap.
(7) of course we all want to be happy. but aim for happiness directly and you’ll never get it. aim at holiness directly and you’ll get it and happiness thrown in. for happiness is like falling asleep — aim for it directly and it will never happen. happiness is always a by-product of obedience, self-negation, and suffering.
(8) the “abhorrence of suffering” by itself always leads to cowardice.
(9) “We need only acknowledge that our actions affect those around us and can cause happiness or suffering.” is this another one of those deep thoughts?
(10) young behe has the audacity to claim that he knows his father’s “subconscious” drives and childhood projections. is he a psychiatrist too?
(11) coming to a blog near you: young behe v. thomas aquinas!
(12) no one has a “lack of belief.” everyone has beliefs. everyone has a worldview. in this sense, everyone has a religion.
(13) atheists — and all of us — must confront the problem of joy. perhaps the joyful atheist can tackle it?
September 9th, 2011 | 9:33 pm
David — maybe, maybe not. Assuming you live to see old age, youthful rebellion can be a good opportunity to see the world. Moreover it seems to be somewhat biologically programmed, particularly in males. The Vikings seemed to recognize and exploit this tendency more than most other cultures.
I think that if you go from Catholicism to atheism (rather than vice versa), you leave yourself more open to accusations of naive youthful rebellion designed more to annoy your parents than to understand anything. That is a movement from a school of thought that, whatever its many flaws may be, has endured and proven itself more or less consistent over the course of millennia. Catholicism inherently respects the contributions of the past. Thus, someone moving from atheism to Catholicism is becoming more traditional, so it would be less likely, probably, although not impossible, that he would be motivated by the desire to annoy his elders.
With atheism, you have the audacity of beating a path into the wilderness of the unknown. There has never been a majority atheist society before the 20th century, and those have failed miserably. So it’s less clear in that case what the attraction is.
Atheism itself as a coherent school of thought doesn’t really make sense. It’s building one’s identity on a negation. I guess most atheists would consider themselves humanists, but that is itself an outgrowth of Catholicism.
I guess if this kid decided to become a committed Confucian, say, or Marxist, I would take him more seriously. As it stands, all he has said is “My parents are wrong!” Again, this sort of gesture can be a healthy step toward becoming an independent adult, particularly if your parents were overbearing. Particularly for males, there is the biological imperative to sow one’s wild oats. The more exotic the better –presumably, this is linked to the incest taboo and the notion of hybrid vigor.
Well, enough psychoanalysis. Atheism, as a parasitic, empty idea, is ultimately very boring. “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” –G.K. Chesterton.
September 9th, 2011 | 10:23 pm
Actually, it’s building one’s identity on a desire for truth, or as close as we humans can come. Looking for evidence and coherence and so forth. “How do you know?” and so forth.
You can disagree with the conclusions but you have to agree that one doesn’t have to be sure what the truth is to detect and reject error.
September 9th, 2011 | 10:26 pm
andrew –
Sure. Just read the foreword here: http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200203/0743435265.htm
You might also see the discussion I had with First Thoughts commenter harry here:http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/04/fine-tuning-an-argument-and-a-universe/
Note that “intelligent design” proponents are suggesting something analogous to this happened. At least, the ones who recognize some form of common descent.
So far, none of the proposed ID examples have panned out, though.
September 10th, 2011 | 12:12 am
I don’t think he’s ready yet. I think both his catholic faith and his atheism are intellectual, not visceral. What I don’t like about homeschoolers is that they really don’t get space from their parents to develop their own identity, and get pushback from different types of people. The head is right but the spirit is weak. Faith and Unbelief are different when they are fought for in the visible square, not just the internet one.
He’ll probably be another Jedidiah Purdy. Smart kid, will write a very erudite book, and then drop out of cultural sight.
September 10th, 2011 | 12:38 am
Ray,
My comment was based on the etymology of “atheist” as from a- “without” + theos “a god.” An atheist as such is without any god. There is nothing in the word “atheist” which marks them out as seekers of truth. That is your optimistic assumption. The word itself suggests only anti-theism.
It is, in fact, counter-intuitive to consider atheists as the seekers after truth. For if truth is their god, then they’re no longer atheists. And if there is no God (referee of truth) to determine truth, then how could there be truth? Without the Lord, isn’t it all just various wills-to-power competing with each other?
“one doesn’t have to be sure what the truth is to detect and reject error.”
The idea of “error” would seem to imply some criterion with which one judges error and … non-error. That is to say, truth.
Ray, truth and falsity are basic categories of undergraduate logic. You may not believe that God exists, but it is the Church which has given you these categories. By suggesting that atheists seek “the truth,” and that that is a category with which Christians are unfamiliar, you are only making yourself into an object of ridicule.
September 10th, 2011 | 2:43 am
Michael Ruse has always struck me as an honest chap. He seems to genuinely respect Christianity. His book, CAN A DARWINIST BE A CHRISTIAN, is essential reading, for those who want to understand Christianity’s essential compatibility with evolutionary biology. http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1159361/?site_locale=en_GB
As much as I respect Michael Behe, I agree with Ruse that Behe’s wrong, regarding evolution. His book, DARWINS BLACK BOX, is a well written, honest book. But its thesis has been successfully refuted, by biologists. See. for example, Miller:http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html
But I certainly sympathize with Behe, concerning his son. I hope that they can reconcile.
This makes me wonder, though, is there a propensity, that’s genetic, for adopting extreme views? In other words, both the father and the son espouse extreme notions. On opposite sides, obviously, but still extreme. Is there a genetic predisposition, among intelligent people, to endorse extreme views?
September 10th, 2011 | 11:49 am
Wow, the The Humanist has discovered a sophomore!
This kid’s musings may be the foundation for a sophisticated approach to life that will endure, but someone of this age should just not be taken seriously as far his personal assessment of the deep issues of life.
If for no other reason, his superficiality is summed up well in his very first response:
“I personally feel that the means through which I selected them (networking with other local homeschoolers) significantly limited the diversity that most children experience through interaction with their peers. ”
Yes, because the typical child’s experience of selecting their friends out of a group of people within six months of the same age within about 10 or 15 points on the IQ bell curve, from families of whom your parents approve, from the same neighborhood, is so much more diverse.
September 10th, 2011 | 11:52 am
Sci-fi and fantasy author John C. Wright recently talked about his conversion from Atheism to Christianity. Here’s a quote:
September 10th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
“What I don’t like about homeschoolers is that they really don’t get space from their parents to develop their own identity, and get pushback from different types of people.”
That’s what you might call an unwarranted generalization.
I’ll even grant you this — it might be true of enough homeschoolers to be valid as a generalization. But there’s enough diversity among homeschoolers to require us to be a little more careful about diagnosing specific situations based on such a generalization.
September 11th, 2011 | 9:02 am
Pentamom, when your kid not only rejects your faith, but is willing to be publicly identified with it knowing that it will cause blowback to you, as well as make his career in life proving the philosophical underpinnings of that belief are wrong…well I assume some rebellion against a parental ideology that dominates their life and stifles their individuality. Mild denials of such aside.
It isn’t popular to say. Homeschooling is the 900 pound gorilla in the room of most religious people to the point where even searching for negative reactions to it on google brings only positive ones. (Yes, even “expletive homeschooling” does.) You wonder though if the reaction would be less intense if he had more diversity of ideas when growing up.
September 11th, 2011 | 10:02 am
I’m a professor–much more obscure than Michael Behe–at an institution that, like Lehigh, is essentially secular. We homeschool our kids. But the facts of my employment, of our location in a major metropolitan area (probably more religious than eastern PA, but less so than the state in which it is located), and of our kids’ engagement in a wide array of activities (scouting and competitive swimming) means that they not swaddled in some sort of familial cocoon.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the children in the Behe family were also exposed to a relatively wide range of views and opinions.
September 11th, 2011 | 10:12 am
Patrick –
Yeah, and ‘Protestants’ protest all the time. To a Muslim, you, me, and Gandhi are pretty much equally infidels, so that term by itself doesn’t convey a lot of information.
It’s a very common claim. “Everybody has faith in something. You may not believe in God, but you have faith in science, or yourself! You just make a god of those things!” Some even say things like “If you turn the ignition key do you ‘believe’ that the engine will come to life? When you enter a darkened room and flip the light switch, do you have faith the electricity will provide enough power to illuminate the bulb and brighten the room? How is it that you can have faith in the car starting or the light coming on?”.
But ‘having faith in’ or ‘believing in’ takes a lot of different forms. There are big differences between ‘believing in something based on evidence’, ‘believing in something without evidence’, and ‘believing in something despite evidence’. People ‘have faith’ in light switches in the sense of ‘trust based on experience’. On the extreme other side, there are people like Kurt Wise who say “…if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.”
Besides which, is everything that is valued and sought after worshipped? I’d really like to see you make that case.
Er… no. The basics of logic were established long before Christianity. Even if you were correct, that doesn’t mean a whole lot by itself. As I’ve pointed out before, chemistry developed from alchemy. Astronomy developed from astrology. They even use a lot of the same terms, still. That doesn’t imply that alchemy or astrology should be given any special credence.
Don’t lecture me about logic if you can’t make a distinction between “not demonstrated to be false” and “true”. :)
Gaahh, it is just astounding how often I’m told what my position is on this site, regardless of what I’ve actually written. Please point out exactly where I wrote “[truth] is a category with which Christians are unfamiliar”. I’d be fascinated to read it.
Try reading my words with the idea that I think Christians are familiar with the concept of truth, and are often quite clever, but… about some things… are just mistaken. Sheesh.
September 11th, 2011 | 12:05 pm
Joe, there’s a difference between doing the activities your dad picks for you, and organic relationships that grow from being in the same neighborhood or high school. Stacking the deck to preselect activities and friends which you approve of is just as much cocooning as anything else.
I also think when the point of homeschooling is greater control over the content of education, being exposed to a diversity of ideas places low on the list. I don’t really have as much faith as you on the subject.
September 11th, 2011 | 8:37 pm
“well I assume some rebellion against a parental ideology that dominates their life and stifles their individuality.”
So how do you explain it when a kid who is schooled in some other way does it? Why pinpoint that factor, and why tie it specifically to homeschooling, when kids rebelling against strict parental ideology is anything but a rare phenomenon restricted to homeschoolers?
“Joe, there’s a difference between doing the activities your dad picks for you, and organic relationships that grow from being in the same neighborhood or high school. Stacking the deck to preselect activities and friends which you approve of is just as much cocooning as anything else.”
Why on earth do you assume that homeschooled kids have no access to community activities or choice in what they participate in or who they associate with? If that is your experience of homeschoolers, and I certainly don’t deny that it could well be, then I have good news for you: you haven’t met a representative sample.
September 12th, 2011 | 1:14 am
So how do you explain it when a kid who is schooled in some other way does it? Why pinpoint that factor, and why tie it specifically to homeschooling, when kids rebelling against strict parental ideology is anything but a rare phenomenon restricted to homeschoolers?
Because it’s easier to express that ideology when you remove the kid from public or even private school. Rebellion happens, but I think it’s mitigated by having an identity apart from the parent-one as a student, making your own choices however small.
By making the parent also the teacher you are folding types of authority into one package and making the target bigger. You’re also controlling the presentation of the information the child gets without a counterbalancing source and identifying with it.
Why on earth do you assume that homeschooled kids have no access to community activities or choice in what they participate in or who they associate with? If that is your experience of homeschoolers, and I certainly don’t deny that it could well be, then I have good news for you: you haven’t met a representative sample.
It’s not “community activities.” It’s organic relationships that are not directly influenced by the parent. This would be less of an issue if we weren’t living in a paranoid culture. The combination of the two is devastating.
It’s stuff like being allowed to ride your bike to the store, or play with neighborhood kids in the basketball court without mothers hovering near. How much of that do they have?
September 12th, 2011 | 9:40 am
“It’s stuff like being allowed to ride your bike to the store, or play with neighborhood kids in the basketball court without mothers hovering near. How much of that do they have?”
My kids are the ones who are the ones biking the neighborhood and hanging out on the neighbors’ basketball court all summer — I have a friend who has a big problem with homeschooling who makes her high school daughter train for cross country by running laps around her five-acre property — won’t even let her out on the road. I’m the one who drops my 13 year old off at the park for practice — another mom whose kids have been public schooled from day one raised a stink when she found out that the 12-14 year old kids would be “alone” (meaning together in a group of 6 or 8) at the nicest park in the best neighborhood in town for 15 minutes before the coach got there because of his teaching schedule.
In my personal experience, from my limited sample, public school parents tend to helicopter much more than homeschoolers. I know exceptions on both sides, but there is really no logical or statistical association between over-protection over-protection and homeschooling.
You have a certain idea of homeschooling, presumably legitimately based on a limited sample of your own experience plus some assumptions about how other people’s minds work. I don’t know how many ways to tell you that what you describe is not non-existent, but has no basis as a generality, let alone a universal or something inherent to the schooling choice.
And of course, public school kids are raised in a dominant ideology imputed to them by respected authority figures with vast influence over their thoughts and activities *every bit as much* as all but the narrowest homeschoolers (who are not typical.) It’s just not the same one, and may or may not be the same one as their parents would promote.
You seem to have a prejudice against homeschooling that motivates you to impute all kinds of things to it as unique dangers, that are about as common to it as they are to any other form of schooling (although on a somewhat different spectrum of manifestation.) I don’t know why, but it disturbs me that you seem unwilling to listen to anything but your preconceived notions on the subject.
September 12th, 2011 | 9:59 am
Let me second pentamom’s last observations.
As I noted above, we too homeschool. Our kids are in 8th and 10th grade. At this point in their educational careers, they are taking a number of classes outside our home, along with other homeschoolers, though we still do some of the teaching ourselves.
Five or six days a week, they spend up to three hours at swim team practice, where almost all the kids attend public or private school. They are “different” from their peers, so there’s a certain diversity in that experience.
My son is the only homeschooler in his Boy Scout troop. His peers razzed him about that–sometimes gently, sometimes not–until they discovered that their immensely impressive High Adventure guide this summer (an engineering student at that renowned evangelical school, Georgia Tech) had also been homeschooled.
The other kids my kids love the most (a cousin, in my son’s case, and a girl who was my daughter’s first toddler playmate) attend public school.
Perhaps my family is a homeschooling outlier, but in some sense all homeschoolers are outliers.
That said, we know a lot of homeschooling families who send their kids to the local community college for joint enrollment before sending their kids to public universities. And I have to say that the homeschooled students I encounter at my university are not afraid of diversity or of engaging with different ideas. (To be sure, they have chosen to attend a secular private university, but many of them come from evangelical homes.)
So, as I said, I’m with pentamom on this issue.
September 12th, 2011 | 3:54 pm
I’m with pentamom and Joe. The homeschooling parents I know are, in the main, far and away less helicopter-ish than the parents of our kids’ schooled friends — my oldest daughter’s public-schooled best friend unplugged an electrical appliance for the first time ever in her life in our house when she was twelve, but I suspect that her mother’s phobia levels might be through the roof in any company. In any event, my admittedly limited observation of parental behaviors suggests that homeschoolers aren’t even close to achieving a monopoly on protectiveness or micromanagement or thought control.
Like pentamom’s kids, my homeschooled children are *the only* kids riding bikes and scooters unsupervised in our very quiet neighborhood; my teenaged son has been getting himself around town, to the library, the used bookstore, and the junk shop, since he was ten. My now-college-aged daughter, she of the appliantically-challenged best friend, took classes on the campus of a local college during high school and signed herself up for a youth orchestra two towns over, where she met a broad spectrum of public-, private-, and homeschooled kids of varying ages and backgrounds. Now she’s a thousand miles from home, happily immersed in her classes and her friends, but calling home pretty much daily just to chat for a few minutes, which seems to indicate that despite having spent lots and lots of time with us already, she still likes us.
I keep coming back to this idea of “organic” relationships. How is it that relationships formed in a strictly-controlled institutional setting chosen by your parents (if they don’t choose the school per se, they choose the neighborhood on the basis of what its schools are like) are “organic?” How is it that relationships formed outside a school — in a neighborhood, or on a soccer team, or through a church or a community theatre or a scout troop, to name some of the places where my children have made friends — are not?
I have no more control over who my kids’ associates are in these groups than I would have if they went to school, nor would I especially want that level of control. I didn’t choose activities for my kids based on my need to corral them with kids like themselves; they chose them because these were things they wanted to do, and they have often made friends with kids with whom they had nothing in common beyond a shared interest in music, or drama, or soccer, or scouting. They also have adult mentors and friends who are nothing like me. All this seems far more natural and “organic” to me than interaction on the bases of age and zip code, with adults as adversarial aliens who assign homework.
September 12th, 2011 | 7:03 pm
In fairness, I didn’t mean to say that my kids are the only ones in the neighborhood that are out and about. Our neighborhood is actually quite good about that. But among my circle of friends from outside the neighborhood, I’m pretty sure that our family is much more Free Range than the average of the public/private schooling families I know.
And also for the record, my kids attend public high school and I expect I’ll be sending the next one there next year and the last in a few more. But the homeschooled ones are as much a part of a “kid culture I don’t control” as any of the other kids in our neighborhood, and as ST says, that doesn’t seem to be affected by the fact that they aren’t sitting in a classroom with other kids during their *non-social* hours.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact