coemgen said:
I'm curious as to what those who are athiests think about this story. Talk amongst yourselves.
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer
NEW YORK - 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.
Don't want to reduce this one because there's going to be more in his argument than what is present here. The major difficulty he's going to have to overcome is the same one that has plagued the argument from design from day 1:
He's going to have to show how his perception of organization NECESSARILY forces us to conclude that there is a God. Again, just because darwinism etc can't yet conclusively determine the origins of the universe doesn't mean that it WAS the product of a deity. If he does, it's a false dilemma.
No doubt his argument will be complicated, but we'll see..
NotAnEasyThing said:
Thank you so much for your well reasoned and respectful response Jon! I appreciate what you're saying about not simply settling for an insuficient and intellectually unsatisfying answer simply because a better (more cogent) arguement is unavailable. I can also agree with the problems with the "false dilemma" kind of arguement. Actually i find people who argue this way intellectually lazy.
But the question of "is there a God" seems to me, not to fall into this category. Either there is....or there isn't. And like any good scientist, isn't the best mode of operation working with the known facts and coming up with the best theory...even if it is still a theory. If you operate like you have said Jon, how would you do anything in life? What I mean is (for an example):
Will I bother getting out of bed today?
a) I could find my house as I remember it last night and it is safe to go and get breaky
or
b) The Cat may have grown into a giant fire breathing beast and eaten all the food in the house
or
c) The whole house may cave in on me if I even move
or d), e), f).....etc.
I know this is completely ridiculous but you get my point I hope. If we only ever make a choice to accept something as truth when all possible avenues have been explored we are rendered useless. To use my analogy before, I choose to get out of bed and make breakfast because based on my experience thus far, it seems very likely that my cat will still be sleeping harmlessly on the lounge and the house will probably have the strength to cope with a few footsteps down the hallway (not to mention I'm hungry!
). That is the best theory (dare I say truth).
On the other side of the ledger, wouldn't it make more logical sense to test a good theory and judge it's validity based on that experience. In the case of the existence of God, I find it strange that people have trouble seeing evidence all over the shop. I guess it depends on how you approach the subject. For me, even the fact that we have the ability to critically debate, ponder, and process these arguements is itself an arguement for an intellegent creator. Don't you find the mind/conciousness a beautifully creative thing? And what about beauty/music/art/pleasure? Where do these fit in to a world that is devoid of God? Did we just evolve on our own to enjoy these creative (none essential facilties)? To me that is illogical.
But these questions were raise by Beli which seem to be common questions that atheists raise concerning God that they feel have no good answers:
Thanks for your reply. Not to be rude, but I can't spend a whole lot of time on here at once, just because of other commitments. I'm sorry about that. So, if you are interested in discussing this at further length, and I would very mush enjoy that, can I request that we narrow down the discussion and focus on each issue individually.
Here are some of the ideas I got from your post. Please feel free to edit this list so that I am not committing a straw man.
1) 'Theory'.
2) Argument from design (that God is evident in the design/organization of the planet and us as human beings.)
3) The logic of Lee Strobel (there is a lot of ground to cover here. what I suggest is that we discuss 1 section of his book at a time, beginning with his justification for the Bible as a reliable source of information. The reason for this is because the rest of his argument rests on this. If you find his logic weak during this argument, you're likely to find the rest of the book weak.)
Again, please feel free to edit this in any way you see fit or to add at your leisure or as issues arise. If it's possible, I kindly ask you to keep the topics as narrow as possible to make the discussion as efficient as possible. Also, I am about to take a couple weeks to spend time with my family so I cannot always reply right away. You can choose the topic we start with if you'd like. Is this a good idea to you? Please let me know and I will be glad to participate. I will also fully understand if you decide you're not interested or that you don't have the time. Kindest regards and happy holidays!
BTW. I used to play hockey and go to school in boston! Is the word 'szabo' stilll commonly used there??
Definitely traveling there to see U2 this time around, but GO HABS GO!!!
Ok all, have a great day/evening/morning.
Jon
muhahaha, It's only a matter of time before I have all your souls for my own!
