"As we all know in dialectics (we do, don't we?) thesis and anti-thesis produce a new "synthesis." That is why Atheists don't mind being a pole, to move the folks in the middle perhaps a nudge over, and create a new American 'synthesis' of religion." -ELYDOG

Yes, thesis and antithesis produce synthesis, a third thing. But this paradigm does not reify either side of the dichotomy, or even the synthesized results. It's good to see yourself as part of a dialogue—would that more of us did—but too many on either "pole" of this particular dialogue refuse to talk to not only their opposite pole, but those of us doing the synthesizing.

I'm an agnostic who finds theism useful. I've been a militant atheist and an agnostic who found atheism useful. My personal investigation of reality, well grounded in science (biology, physics, psychology, neuroscience), as well as the history of science, has led me through this development into who I am today.

I know a PhD in biology who worked at Woods Hole for years (excellent bona fides if I ever heard of them), who is a Jesuit priest. Actually, I've known several scientifically degreed priests, as well as dozens of lay people who believe in evolution and also believe in God. They understand that God is a personal experience, and evolution is a scientifically demonstrated fact.

I know a few physicists who found in their work, as I did in my physics studies, serious reason to believe some kind of observing intelligence must exist, in order to provide a ground of being for the universe we live in. They were in the minority at the SSC, but there they were, working on science, looking for particles, and doing it all with a belief in God. Hmmm....

I think the synthesis has been around for at least a century, if not longer. I think the sudden increase in both militant atheism and fundamentalist Christianity is a backlash, because now that the information age is upon us, the new synthesis is "out there" and threatening to the false dichotomy of the old poles. Else why is it that neither militant atheist nor fundamentalist Christian will talk to the true agnostics looking to science to understand their world? We are reviled by both sides, yet we offer hope for sanity in dealing with these issues. Certainly we offer a better option than the creation science/IDers, or the few (but loudly speaking) elitist, insulting atheists.

I think most people are humbler than these two poles, and less able to tell another human "I'm right and you're wrong." We're doing our best. And for those on both sides who see themselves as part of the larger dialogue, please—be more open to seeing the synthesized results already around you.

My deepest wish is that humans stop seeing the knee-jerk viewing of thoughts in either-or terms, and realize that any two and perhaps many more options might be right, viable, or useful in different circumstances. Try stepping away from either-or beliefs and into your personal experience (the only thing you truly "know" is the present moment), and see what the world has to say.

People who force the world to fit their beliefs, instead of experiencing and learning from existence, believe not in God or science, but themselves.

To fix one thing at a time is excellent advice; kind of an adaptation on systems psychology. (That's fix, not escape by leaving or selling.) The father is trapped in a system he can't bring himself out of on his own. Something needs to change. Change makes other change seem possible. Improvement, however small, highlights problems through contrast. And service is a language of love that can often speak to people who can't hear supportive words.

Yes to PTSD. Perhaps yes to OCD, although I don't know enough from the letter. OCD is occasionally associated with PTSD (I've been there myself), because it's (a) an excellent distraction from the trauma, and (b) an all-too-easy way of convincing yourself you're in control (desirable for anyone, but highly desirable for trauma victims). But it's possible psychiatric or psychological help will not be possible until the father sees the problem, and Cary's suggestion will help with that.

I caught some wording that brought me up short, and it may be a possible clue. It either highlights the disconnect between father and son (the very disconnect the son is seeking to heal), or showcases the father's inability to properly acknowledge his own trauma. The LW said his father "won" a purple heart.

Now, I grew up military, with a father who fought in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam), and had his own various battle awards. Neither he nor any other combat vet I ever met spoke of "winning" any combat-related award. The purple heart is awarded for being wounded in battle. This, and other battle-related awards (bronze and silver stars, distinguished service medal and cross, etc.) are either earned by or awarded to soldiers. They are not won. They are not prizes in a competition.

I don't mention this as a critique, but as a clue. If the father uses this language, he is in denial to some extent about the nature of his trauma (another PTSD clue). If the son uses it on his own, it's a clue to the kind of disconnect between them.

Cary may have clued into this himself when he warned the son not to seek recognition for his own heroism. Whenever someone trapped in a bad system begins to break out of it, things get more difficult short-term. The bad system is there to help avoid looking at worse problems, and removing it is like opening a can of worms. The improvements from change make it worth going through this, but it's an inevitable part of the process.

But the best advice I ever learned in both dealing with my own problems and helping others grapple with theirs is this: Love, and do as you will.