Leading atheist becomes theist

[Xpycoctomos]

Bushido, I don't know if you know who this guy really is. He is like the godfather of modern atheism. He is very well read and, academically speaking, he knows what he's talking about better than anyone here in CF. I can guarantee you that. If it is true that he said that ID was the only conclusion he could come to, then I have to take his word that he knows what he's talking about. I agree that you cannot come to Christ on purely academic/scholastic fuel and you are right that until he sees God as a God of Love and experiences that love for himself, then he will never come to Christ. But this is an awesome step in the right direction and one that was needed for CS Lewis as well. (Although his was more philosophical than scientific... but he still lacked viewing God as a personal -and therefore loving- God).

So, you're right, he misses the boat until he realizes that God is personal, but he's going toward the boat right now and he may very well lead others toward that boat as well. Enough with that analogy lol.

John

 

[Bushido216]

Xypcoctomos,

Antony Flew was an excellent philosopher and logician. However, I don't think he has any credentials to speak of in the scientific field. 99.9% of biologists accept the modern theory of evolution. I'd take their combined word over the word of Antony Flew on this subject.

 

[geocajun]

Why are people so quick to indicate that congnitive science is not a real science?
There is a method to philosophy and logic.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, if he feels he is convinced enough in his own field and that has a lot of influence over other atheists that think like him, then I would have to applaud him. It seems I have mixed up the discipline, but it still stands that from everything Flew can see, option B is better than A and he is a very well read man... so I would have to guess that he is not someone who would hastily jump ship. It's not like he's the first to come to this conclusion either. Any conclusion can be laughable from a certain aspect. It doesn't maek the conclusion hold anyless water. I guess I don't get what the beef is?

 

[Bushido216]

Xpy,

My problem is that he took that step using the wrong path. Intelligent Design is not science, and it shouldn't be used for anything.

It's just one aspect of a large problem, Christians (really Protestants moreso than Catholics, to be honest) try to "prove" God using the bad science of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Too often I've seen Christians tasked with "proving" God only to fall back on bad science.

This gets us laughed at.

I'd rather that Christian apologists learn to witness by preaching about God's love and mercy, and that he sent his only Son down to earth for our sins. In my class I hammer that home every week. I tell them to sit down and really try to think about not only the majesty of God but the signifigance of that one act. Christians need to take Jesus back from the realm of abstract thought and put Him back squarely as the central focus of witnessing and our daily lives.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

When I was younger, the first thing that gave me the possibility of believing in God was a problem with evolution. Until I saw that problem, there was no open door at all.

That speaks a lot to me in hindsight.

 

[isshinwhat]

Isn't erosion amazing!?!? I mean to think... rain and wind did all of that!

WOW, and look what a bunch of randomly grouped, uncreated gases managed to do, too!

http://www.colukcocuk.com.tr/2004/01/metin_images/ocak0020.jpg
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t048/T048254A.jpg

http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/cairo/gallery/sphinx.jpg

 

[isshinwhat]

Intelligent Design is not science, and it shouldn't be used for anything.

Intelligent design is a scientific theory resulting from observation. You are correct, ID is not science, ID is a theory supported by science.

Neal

 

[RhetorTheo]

isshinwhat, that is a great paradox. You would think that a designed economy, such as that of the Soviet Union, would exhibit incredible complexity, while a deregulated economy (one that "evolves" on its own) would be simplistic. And you'd expect to see complex roadways where they are planned by the city, and simple roadways in areas where the roads were made as needed (eg, Boston). Instead, we see the very opposite. Strange but true, complexity is evidence of a lack of design.

 

[isshinwhat]

Strange but true, complexity is evidence of a lack of design.

Depends on how deeply you search. We are forced to examine the universe on such an infinately small scale that science tends to miss the larger picture for years. For instance, until the epiphany of Lorenz, how long did science overlook that which philosophy had long since grasped theoretically?

The applications of chaos theory are infinite; seemingly random systems produce patterns of spooky understandable irregularity. From the Mandelbrot set to turbulence to feedback and strange attractors; chaos appears to be everywhere. Breakthroughs have been made in the past in the area chaos theory, and, in order to achieve any more colossal accomplishments in the future, they must continue to be made. Understanding chaos is understanding life as we know it.

Manus Donahue III

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Xpy,

My problem is that he took that step using the wrong path. Intelligent Design is not science, and it shouldn't be used for anything.

It's just one aspect of a large problem, Christians (really Protestants moreso than Catholics, to be honest) try to "prove" God using the bad science of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Too often I've seen Christians tasked with "proving" God only to fall back on bad science.

This gets us laughed at.

I'd rather that Christian apologists learn to witness by preaching about God's love and mercy, and that he sent his only Son down to earth for our sins. In my class I hammer that home every week. I tell them to sit down and really try to think about not only the majesty of God but the signifigance of that one act. Christians need to take Jesus back from the realm of abstract thought and put Him back squarely as the central focus of witnessing and our daily lives.

Hmmm... I see your point, and I agree that too often Chrsitians try to do this... and I agree that it is futile and absurd... it makes us look dumb. I don't think I understood quite what you were saying before (my fault) and I think we were talking past eachother (I think I started that... sorry). You're saying that there is no way to prove the existence of God (through science). I agree with you and applaud your effort to get through my thick skull that this is what you were trying to say. I detest this about a lot of Protestants (not all) as well. What I will say to that is that in the same way, it is futile to prove that God does NOT exist. Many scientists will recognize this and, although they may be atheists themselves, they do not use science as proof of their belief. Fundamentalist atheists (like Fundamentalist Christians) DO do this... or they use philosophy or whatever other mechanism to "prove" their ideas about Him Who is outside of Creation. Because of this, I do not criticize (at least not wholey) the recent statements of the former atheist in question. It seems to me he was only trying to say, "look, here's a theory that there is ID and science can do nothing to disprove that... infact for me there is too much taht science cannot answer here." This may be laughable to some... but what he is saying is true. This will lead some to say "Well just because science cant answer it doesn't lead me to believe in a cosmic watch maker" and others (like this guy) who say "Well, it leads me to believe that unless you can offer me something else more plausible." i don't think he is standing up and saying "I have found conclusive evidence of god's existence!"... and if he is (maybe he did say that) then I retract my defense and suggest that this is silly too.

John

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

"You're saying that there is no way to prove the existence of God (through science). I agree with you"

Well, I don't agree with him at all.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

We can prove God's existence with science or other man made ways of thinking? ok.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

We can prove God's existence with science or other man made ways of thinking? ok.

The former leading atheist seems to think so...as does Dogma of the Catholic Church, as does Romans.

 

[geocajun]

to be clear, the dogma states we can know that God exists by reason.
Other than offering that, I wont be contributing to this discussion about how big and tastey peoples brains are.