brownie Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 (edited) A famous atheist changes his mind. He is 81... From AP: Quote One of the world's leading atheists now believes in God, more or less By RICHARD N. OSTLING AP Religion Writer NEW YORK (AP) - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God - more or less - based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis. Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews. The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote. The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman. This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Books. Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife. Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal." Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life. A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15. Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all. Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists. Edited December 10, 2004 by brownie Quote
BERIGAN Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 I am sure Alexander says Bah humbug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote
Christiern Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 "Cosmic Saddam Husseins," I like that! This, too: "Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists." Quote
Alexander Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 BERIGAN said: I am sure Alexander says Bah humbug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Indeed... This confrims nothing except that the fear of death is the primary motivation for belief in God. The guy's 81 years old. He was bold in his disbelief because he didn't believe he was really going to die. But for some time now I'm sure that he's found himself brought closer and closer to the inevitable fact of his mortality, until he found himself unable to resist Pascal's wager and threw in, just in case, with the Diety. Am I disappointed? Hardly. Frankly, I'd never heard of the guy before today. Similarly, my disbelief isn't predicated on anyone else's disbelief. All of the atheists in the world could embrace God tomorrow, but it wouldn't change the way *I* feel. I still don't believe, and I don't think I ever will. But who am I to argue with death? One day, when the end of my life is near, I'll probably feel like hedging my bets too. But somehow I doubt it... Quote
brownie Posted December 10, 2004 Author Report Posted December 10, 2004 clementine said: B-- typing of M. Delius, is it worth a visit to Grez-sur-Loing these days you think? clem I'ld wait until next Spring to visit Grez-sur-Loing. And I'll probably do that. I have not been to Grez for quite some time. Still a pretty nice place. Not far from Moret-sur-Loing which is beautiful too! Is Delius buried in Grez? I'm an atheist who believes in Ellington. And my god loved Delius... Quote
Jim Alfredson Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 Rooster_Ties said: Flip-flopper Yeah, that's the problem with those damn god-less, homo-lovin' liberals. They keep changing their mind. It's OUR God, dammit! Stay away! Quote
Jim Alfredson Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 BTW, I know you were joking, Rooster. Quote
take5 Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 The problem with his new argument is the same problem he had with his atheism argument: trying to apply scientific principles towards a spiritual concept. It's like trying to cut down a tree with a herring. He claims that the complexity of DNA is "proof" of creation by God. The "it's so complex" argument has been used before and it's nonsense. Some have tried it with eyes, ie, eyes are so complex that God HAD to design them. No there are very plausible and reasonable theories that trace the development of the human eye. This is called progress, the advancement of scientific knowledge. Genetics is an extremely young field of study. To throw our hands up now and cry, "It's SO HARD it must be god" is foolish. No, its mysteries will not be discovered in his lifetime, probably not in ours. And even if, hypothetically, it's still so complicated we won't get it in hundreds of years, that tells us nothing about any gods. Presuming spiritual "facts" by our own limitations is completely illogical. His original argument that there is no God was just as faulty, for the same reasons. The existence of God is not proveable, nor is its non-existence. God has no universal definition, no observable cause and effect relationships, nothing to quantify to qualify. How can something so personl, so transitory even be discussed as if it were an objective thing? Quote
Big Al Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 take5 said: It's like trying to cut down a tree with a herring. It really isn't so difficult, as long as you freeze it first. The fish, that is..... Quote
catesta Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 Big Al said: take5 said: It's like trying to cut down a tree with a herring. It really isn't so difficult, as long as you freeze it first. The fish, that is..... Ha! Quote
RDK Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 That's why I prefer agnosticism - that way, either way I'll be surprised... Quote
BruceH Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 RDK said: That's why I prefer agnosticism - that way, either way I'll be surprised... Right on ....though I try to be agnostic on the subject. Quote
Christiern Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 take5 said: It's like trying to cut down a tree with a herring. Well, when I was growing up in Iceland... Never mind, we did eventually import saws. Quote
connoisseur series500 Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 I don't think I'll ever become a "believer." Nevertheless, I say "good for him!" I'm happy that the philosopher has managed to arrive at some kind of conclusion. For me, however, I don't think there will ever be any answers on the issue of God. Quote
Alexander Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 (edited) Christiern said: take5 said: It's like trying to cut down a tree with a herring. Well, when I was growing up in Iceland... Never mind, we did eventually import saws. (Knock on the door...DAD answers...A MAN wearing a sign that reads ICLANDIC HONEY WEEK stands before him) Man: A strong hive of bees contains approximately 75,000 bees. Each honey bee must make 154 trips to collect one teaspoon of honey. Hello, sir. Dad: What do you want? Man: Would you like to buy some of our honey, sir? Mother: What you doing in here? Man: Which would you like, the Californian Orange Blossom, the Mexican, the New Zealand, or the Scottish Heather? Mother: He can't eat honey. It makes him go plop plops. Man: Come on, please try some. Dad: All right I'll have some Icelandic Honey. Man: No, there is no such thing. Dad: You mean you don't make any honey at all? Man: No, no, we must import it all. Every bally drop. We are a gloomy people. It's so crikey cold and dark up there, and only fish to eat. Fish and imported honey. Oh strewth! Mother: Well why do you have a week? Man: Listen Buster! In Reykyavik it is dark for eight months of the year, and it's cold enough to freeze your wrists off and there's only golly fish to eat. Administrative errors are bound to occur in enormous quantifies. Look at this - it's all a mistake. It's a real pain in the sphincter! Icelandic HoneyWeek? My Life! Mother: Well why do you come in here trying to flog the stuff, then? Man: Listen Cowboy. I got a job to do. It's a stupid, pointless job but at least it keeps me away from Iceland, all right? The leg of the worker bee has... (They slam the door on him. Someone rather like Jeremy Thorpe looks round the door and waves as they do so.) Edited December 10, 2004 by Alexander Quote
frank m Posted December 10, 2004 Report Posted December 10, 2004 A consideration for theologians: My wife's cousin went to Lourdes, where she fell and broke her hip.My question: "Is there a conservation principle at work here?????" Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.