• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CalvinOwen

Guest
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God


One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence


feature_txt_filler_ap.gif
The Associated Press


NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — 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 (could he be wrong here as well?) 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 Press.

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." (Christian's have been telling evolutionists this for years!)

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.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976
 

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Let's just look at one of the comments here. (To say nothing of the fact that this is fairly old news, and actually hurts your position horribly.)

OP said:
(Christian's have been telling evolutionists this for years!)

The unambiguous implication is that evolutionists and Christians are mutually exclusive groups.

In fact, most Christians accept evolution.

Other issues:
* Flew is not talking in a field he's particularly expert in.
* But worse for your case, he's an evolutionist, and would treat Creationist claims with a mix of hostility and derision.

In short, what you've got here is someone who accepted Deism based on third-hand claims about abiogenesis, and even if we assume his reasoning is good, it's an argument against creationism.

Meanwhile, you take the opportunity to not merely reprint an article without permission, but to slide in a crude and offensive dig at fellow Christians along the way.

Charming.
 
Upvote 0
C

CalvinOwen

Guest
seebs said:
Let's just look at one of the comments here. (To say nothing of the fact that this is fairly old news, and actually hurts your position horribly.)

The unambiguous implication is that evolutionists and Christians are mutually exclusive groups.

In fact, most Christians accept evolution.

Other issues:
* Flew is not talking in a field he's particularly expert in.
* But worse for your case, he's an evolutionist, and would treat Creationist claims with a mix of hostility and derision.

In short, what you've got here is someone who accepted Deism based on third-hand claims about abiogenesis, and even if we assume his reasoning is good, it's an argument against creationism.

Meanwhile, you take the opportunity to not merely reprint an article without permission, but to slide in a crude and offensive dig at fellow Christians along the way.

Charming.

Oh, I see, if an important news story doesn't fit your worldview "Attack and Destroy!"

Well lets just examine all of your attacks:

1) "Most Christians Accept Evolution"

Not in the polls, church's, workplace, or country that I live and and have my being in:

Look at just this one article (that I cut and pasted without permission from The Furher)

New Poll: Most believe Creation over Evolution

An American poll on "Creation vs. Evolution" released in George magazine, published by the late John F. Kennedy, Jr., indicates that most Americans believe in the Genesis account of special creation and do not accept the theory of total organic evolution.

On evolution:

51% do not believe that humans evolved from lower life forms
38% do believe in evolution
12% don't know, refused to answer

On creation:

60% believe the world was created in seven days
27% do not
13% don't know, or refused to answer

The poll noted the differences between those who describe themselves as liberal or conservative, with the majority of conservatives describing themselves as creationist.

Of conservatives:

70% believe in a 7-day creation
30% believe in evolution

Of liberals: 45% believe in a 7-day creation
58% believe in evolution

2) "Flew is not talking in a field he's particularly expert in."

I see, you have to be a scientist to understand the evidence and the debates over creation and evolution. Oh wait, I mean an evolutionist scientist, creationist scientists don't count. Well thank goodness we have people who can think for us, who know what they are doing!

3) "But worse for your case, he's an evolutionist, and would treat Creationist claims with a mix of hostility and derision."

Best for the evidence of creation is we have here a popular former atheist who embrased evolution and valiantly defended atheism and evolution for decades who now, after examing the evidence, has changed his mind.

In short, what we have here is an example of what happens when evidence is examined with "an open mind" in the marketplace of ideas, This sure beats following the "party-line" like we force our children to do as they are indoctrinated into believing one theory that is, quite frankly, on its way out in our public schools.

Amazing!

Shame on us!
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
CalvinOwen - in the US, you may have a point.

Over here, and in most countries outside of the US, it is not so. I don't know any YEC Christians in the UK personally. The vast majority, even of conservative evangelicals, are frankly embarrassed that there are Christians who will deny the entire corpus of scientific knowledge in this manner.
 
Upvote 0
C

CalvinOwen

Guest
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
CalvinOwen - in the US, you may have a point.

Over here, and in most countries outside of the US, it is not so. I don't know any YEC Christians in the UK personally. The vast majority, even of conservative evangelicals, are frankly embarrassed that there are Christians who will deny the entire corpus of scientific knowledge in this manner.

And we US Christians are embarrased over the UK Christians abandoning the Scriptures so quickly. When all the points of evolution are abandoned and proven wrong, as the evidence offered in the Scopes Trial was subsequently and embarrassingly proved to fraudulent and wrong, will you be equally emabarrassed as you are now over Christians who believe Genesis?

America was founded on Christians who took the Scriptures very seriously, that's why/how we became the greatest nation on earth. There is still a strong remnant of us here today.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
CalvinOwen said:
And we US Christians are embarrased over the UK Christians abandoning the Scriptures so quickly. When all the points of evolution are abandoned and proven wrong, as the evidence offered in the Scopes Trial was subsequently and embarrassingly proved to fraudulent and wrong, will you be equally emabarrassed as you are now over Christians who believe Genesis?

America was founded on Christians who took the Scriptures very seriously, that's why/how we became the greatest nation on earth. There is still a strong remnant of us here today.

What evidence presented in the Scopes trial? The judge refused to permit any scientists to testify.
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
CalvinOwen said:
When all the points of evolution are abandoned and proven wrong, as the evidence offered in the Scopes Trial was subsequently and embarrassingly proved to fraudulent and wrong

just for clarification, could you provide a source for this? I've never heard anyone suggest that any "evidence" for evolution was proved anything in that trial.
Thanks
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
CalvinOwen said:
Oh, I see, if an important news story doesn't fit your worldview "Attack and Destroy!"

No.

But this is not important, or news. We've had multiple discussions of it a month or two back, in forums it has something to do with.

1) "Most Christians Accept Evolution"

Not in the polls, church's, workplace, or country that I live and and have my being in:

Ahh, but Christians are not all Americans. Worldwide, most Christians accept evolution.

Furthermore, if any at all do, the implication of your snide remark is wrong.

2) "Flew is not talking in a field he's particularly expert in."

I see, you have to be a scientist to understand the evidence and the debates over creation and evolution. Oh wait, I mean an evolutionist scientist, creationist scientists don't count. Well thank goodness we have people who can think for us, who know what they are doing!

Er. Dude. Flew is not any kind of scientist at all. He's a philosopher. Not a biologist.

Furthermore, he is accepting a position which requires Creationism to be false.

3) "But worse for your case, he's an evolutionist, and would treat Creationist claims with a mix of hostility and derision."

Best for the evidence of creation is we have here a popular former atheist who embrased evolution and valiantly defended atheism and evolution for decades who now, after examing the evidence, has changed his mind.

Except he still accepts evolution.

How much more clear does it need to be?

ANTHONY FLEW BELIEVES THAT LIFE EVOLVED FROM PRIMITIVE CELLS.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
CalvinOwen said:
And we US Christians are embarrased over the UK Christians abandoning the Scriptures so quickly. When all the points of evolution are abandoned and proven wrong, as the evidence offered in the Scopes Trial was subsequently and embarrassingly proved to fraudulent and wrong, will you be equally emabarrassed as you are now over Christians who believe Genesis?

America was founded on Christians who took the Scriptures very seriously, that's why/how we became the greatest nation on earth. There is still a strong remnant of us here today.

Equating interpreting the Scriptures differently to abandoning them is quite wrong, and borders on the offensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaladinValer
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, the various Creationist organizations make it part of their platform and their mission statement that they will NOT just "follow the evidence where it leads". They will follow the evidence that supports their reading of Scripture. Any other evidence is assumed to be incorrect. Instead, it is science, as a discipline, which follows the evidence where it leads, even if it leads in a direction that is contrary to current assumptions. This is proven hundreds of times every year when scientists revise their theories or even abandon them as new evidence comes in which forces them to reconsider. Consider how our current views on so many very important aspects of our earth and universe have been dramatically altered in the last 200 years, and you have to acknowledge that the scientific community WILL follow the evidence.

Now, some particular scientists may only move forward kicking and screaming, because it will undermine some of his own work and concepts he has come to be "invested" in. But that is where the idea of the scientific community as a whole comes into play. The truth of scientific evidence and the best conclusions which can be drawn from that evidence will not be held back by a person or even a group. The collective interest of the whole in finding out what the real answer is will always override individual bias .
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.