Icons of Evolution

[DennisF]

Speaking of icons of evolution, Richard Dawkins has announced his farewell tour. As he put it,

"I shall be spending the whole of September, and the first week of October, in North America, speaking in ten different cities from Dallas to Vancouver. I am 83 years old, and travel is more irksome than it was. The maxim, “Quit while you’re ahead” has recently received a welcome boost, and I anticipate that this will be my last American tour. My swansong. My final bow.

There’ll be a Q & A at every event. And I’ll be signing any or all of my 19 books, including The Genetic Book of the Dead, which will be just published. This will probably be your last opportunity to tell me how profoundly you disagree with everything I’ve written and said. Or the reverse if that is the case. Either way, I look forward to seeing you."

Tickets available at Richard Dawkins Tour – Reason Reignited

Since the world's leading atheist, Antony Flew in Britain, son of a pastor, reneged on his atheism in his 80s, his successor to the papal chair of atheism seems to be Dawkins who, now in his 80s, can rethink his worldview and, following his predecessor, also renounce it. And who shall replace Dawkins? Atheism is wearing rather thin nowadays.

 

[DennisF]

There is another version, a little more complicated theologically, which finds the theory of evolution (or any naturalistic theory, for that matter) to not require direct divine intervention on a material level but still attributes to Him continuous causal involvement. This was worked out by Thomas Aquina centuries ago and I believe it to be the position of most Traditional Christians. myself included.

I am not so sure that this view on creation has dominated Christian thinking historically, though one could provide support for it from a careful reading of Genesis 1, where the elohim say: Let the earth bring forth ..." Sounds like natural process to me. Yet the more basic question remains to be answered: Where did this nature that brings forth itself originate?
Note also that the Genesis creation account nowhere tells us the scope of creation. Is it the earth, sun and moon, or more? Stars (kowkob in Hebrew) are any bright points of light in the sky, including planets and comets. In Gen. 1:1, "heavens" (shamayim) can mean "skies" and "earth" (eretz) is land. So this can be read: land and skies. The modern cosmological model of the entire universe is nowhere even hinted at in scripture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since the world's leading atheist, Antony Flew in Britain, son of a pastor, reneged on his atheism in his 80s, his successor to the papal chair of atheism seems to be Dawkins who, now in his 80s, can rethink his worldview and, following his predecessor, also renounce it. And who shall replace Dawkins? Atheism is wearing rather thin nowadays.

Why are you treating atheism like it's an actual religious group like the Catholic Church?

 

[DennisF]

Why are you treating atheism like it's an actual religious group like the Catholic Church?

I am treating as an analogy and not as being in the same category as organized religion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am treating as an analogy and not as being in the same category as organized religion.

It's a very bad analogy since no atheist treats Dawkins as any kind of authority figure, especially not one as powerful as the pope. He's a man with opinions, and a rather inflated ego about himself too from what I've seen, an image which isn't helped by certain sects of Christians treating as an all powerful atheist figurehead.

 

[DennisF]

It's a very bad analogy since no atheist treats Dawkins as any kind of authority figure, especially not one as powerful as the pope. He's a man with opinions, and a rather inflated ego about himself too from what I've seen, an image which isn't helped by certain sects of Christians treating as an all powerful atheist figurehead.

Well, don't read too much into the analogy. The fact is that Dawkins is one of the most well-known atheists on the planet.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, don't read too much into the analogy. The fact is that Dawkins is one of the most well-known atheists on the planet.

And that really means nothing since it's not really anything to do with the OP topic.

 

[NxNW]

Since the world's leading atheist, Antony Flew in Britain, son of a pastor, reneged on his atheism in his 80s

Never heard of him. World's leading? Says who?

his successor to the papal chair of atheism seems to be Dawkins who, now in his 80s, can rethink his worldview and, following his predecessor, also renounce it.

That would be something to see.

Atheism is wearing rather thin nowadays.

It is? Says who? Fewer and fewer people identify as religious.

 

[NxNW]

And that really means nothing since it's not really anything to do with the OP topic.

He's certainly an icon and he's a proponent of evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since the world's leading atheist, Antony Flew in Britain, son of a pastor, reneged on his atheism in his 80s, his successor to the papal chair of atheism seems to be Dawkins who, now in his 80s, can rethink his worldview and, following his predecessor, also renounce it. And who shall replace Dawkins? Atheism is wearing rather thin nowadays.

1. The only people who ever mention Anthony Flew are Christians trying to attack "Atheism". No one cares.
2. Flew is dead.
3. "Atheism" doesn't have a chieftain that needs to be replaced. Or rules, or anything at all.
4. Nobody really cares about Dawkins anymore either.
5. None of us care if you think it is "wearing thin". Were not going to start believing in your gods, believers of various stripes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He's certainly an icon and he's a proponent of evolution.

But not in regards to the icons listed in the thread OP, which is the topic of the thread.

 

[DennisF]

Never heard of him. World's leading? Says who?

That would be something to see.

It is? Says who? Fewer and fewer people identify as religious.

If you have never heard of Antony Flew, then you wouldn't know of his status in the world as an atheist. You have the world's most extensive library available to you in the Internet. Do a websearch on his name. Investigation has never been easier. You might start here: Antony Flew - Wikipedia Then you can decide for yourself as to his notoriety.

 

[DennisF]

1. The only people who ever mention Anthony Flew are Christians trying to attack "Atheism". No one cares.
2. Flew is dead.
3. "Atheism" doesn't have a chieftain that needs to be replaced. Or rules, or anything at all.
4. Nobody really cares about Dawkins anymore either.
5. None of us care if you think it is "wearing thin". Were not going to start believing in your gods, believers of various stripes.

Who is this "no one" who doesn't care? Read Antony Flew - Wikipedia for a fuller perspective on Flew.
Nobody said that atheism is socially organized, though there are atheist organizations.
Are you supposing that Dawkins has insignificant influence in the world?
You need not care about what I think, but you should care about what you think, and comments from others can assist you in that effort.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Never heard of him. World's leading? Says who?

Antony Flew was a leading Old Guard atheist philosopher [i.e. leading among atheist of the Oxfordian brand in the 20th century]. Everyone in academia knows this. However, and to the dismay of some, it just so happens that Flew began to reconsider some things about religion right before he died.

That would be something to see.

It is? Says who? Fewer and fewer people identify as religious.

You're unfortunately correct here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who is this "no one" who doesn't care? Read Antony Flew - Wikipedia for a fuller perspective on Flew.
Nobody said that atheism is socially organized, though there are atheist organizations.
Are you supposing that Dawkins has insignificant influence in the world?
You need not care about what I think, but you should care about what you think, and comments from others can assist you in that effort.

Unfortunately, the Old Guard atheists, as well as the New Atheists of 20 years ago, have been replaced with a Next Gen set of ex-christian organizations, podcasters and youtubers. It's not going bye-bye just yet. ... we can pray things change, though.

 

[NxNW]

But not in regards to the icons listed in the thread OP, which is the topic of the thread.

Okay, that's fair.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who is this "no one" who doesn't care? Read Antony Flew - Wikipedia for a fuller perspective on Flew.

Perhaps dead, obscure philosopher (pardon the redundancy) would have been better. I've watched, listened to, or read a lot of content from "atheist media types" in the last decade and I don't recall any of them bringing up Flew or mentioning him other than, perhaps quickly in passing. None of them are building their arguments on mentions of him. To the extent his ideas are important today (and I have no idea if they are) no one prefaces discussion of them with an invocation to his name. (They do mention Bertrand Russell, another, earlier, also dead, English atheist and philosopher.)

Where I have heard is the occasional Christian trying to use Flew and his sunset-years "conversion" as some sort of argument that we'll all be back in the fold, or atheism is hollow or whatever. It's a lousy argument.

Nobody said that atheism is socially organized, though there are atheist organizations.

Come on, man. You said Flew vacated the "papal chair of atheism". I know plenty of *Christians* here that will get all hot and bothered if you even imply that their *denomination* has a ruling personal authority, let alone all of Christianity. "Atheism" is far far less organized. (Mostly completely unorganized)

Are you supposing that Dawkins has insignificant influence in the world?

Yes (more than the deceased Flew, but that doesn't take much). As noted in other replies, the "atheist movement" and media environment has largely moved on from the "New Atheists", so, no, he isn't that significant any more

You need not care about what I think, but you should care about what you think, and comments from others can assist you in that effort.

I don't care what you think. I do care what I think and I have thought about it, but none of your comments are going to convince me that your supernatural god is even remotely possible.

I doubt Flew or atheists are "icons of evolution", so let's be done with this.

 

[NxNW]

If you have never heard of Antony Flew, then you wouldn't know of his status in the world as an atheist. You have the world's most extensive library available to you in the Internet. Do a websearch on his name. Investigation has never been easier.

If he was as famous as claimed, I wouldn't need to research him.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Atheism" is far far less organized. (Mostly completely unorganized)

Then what's the Atheist Manifesto?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then what's the Atheist Manifesto?

Which one? There's four (apparently).