Leading Atheist see's the ligh

[Thaddius]

From Here

Quote[/b] ]Thursday, December 09, 2004

NEW YORK — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism (search) 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 (search) 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 (search), 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 (search), 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.

Cory

 

[Vanaze]

God can even break the hearts of the unwilling and stubborn. This should give everyone hope for any lost loved ones, no matter their age or how long they have been set in their ways. God brings down walls of great cities, a human heart should be no more challenging for Him.

 

[LITSAFALDA]

Thanks Cory. I was really hoping it might have been about one of our "guys." I have seen the miracles as well as seen the devil retake them away. I know in His perfect timing people's hearts open to what was there all along. Blessings,"Angel"

 

[kraniac]

Prometheus Books, for those who do not know, doesn't specialize in "skeptical thought," like the article says. It is, in fact, the publishing arm of the Council for Secular Humanism, which believes, against all evidence, that science is the only infallible means for truth-- which is not exactly a skeptical viewpoint, especially given that science has, in history, been wrong a number of times. I occasionally read their propaganda magazine, Free Inquiry, because it always contains plenty of Christian-bashing and I try very hard not to let myself slip into apathy. Nothing will make a person become useless to the work of God and Christianity faster than the apathy of not seeing people opposed to your faith. Reading that magazine not only keeps my apologetics sharp, but also reminds me of all the lost people we need to reach-- and, more importantly, reach with intelligence, not with tracts. Some dude at the mall is not going to care about your God, especially when you shove Him in his face. He's more likely to be offended and create a negative stereotype of Christians as bothersome. Instead, fight those who are interested in fighting us, and win them over with reason and wit, just as they are trying to do with us. Too many people think Christianity is just some dumb religion for those not intellectual enough to be capable of living without it. That is definitely not true, and in fact, I would state the opposite-- that athiesm is that dumb religion for people not intellectual enough to realize that their own mind and power has limits not set by ourselves, to realize that the universe is orderly and was therefore probably designed by a Creator, and to realize that that Creator probably cares for our happiness since our existence is painless unless an outside force inflicts unhappiness.

Wow, I could just rant forever. I should just stop there.

 

[Mr.Bill]

But science and logic are the only infallible way to obtain truth--they are so by their nature.  Science that has been proven incorrect is, quite simply, science that was performed incorrectly, for if the system is implimented correctly, it is impossible for it to be false.  It's a fuzzy line, but a line nonetheless.

And um, I would suggest to you that calling atheism a 'dumb religion' is unwise and uncalled for. I don't call your faith 'dumb,' nor do I believe that it is in the least.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I'd just like to highlight a portion of that article in case you skimmed over it in your enthusiasm:

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 may have given up Atheism, but he is a LONG way from embracing Christianity or anything resembling it.

You may also be interested (I hope) in Richard Carrier's take. That can be found here.

A quote from that article:

Quote[/b] ]The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind

While this is a loss for the Atheistic community, it most definately isn't a win for Christianity.

Read Carrier's articles, they will shed some light on the situation.

To kraniac:

Quote[/b] ]that athiesm is that dumb religion for people

Unfortunately, your rant only served to show your ignorance about Atheism. (I refrained from calling it a "dumb" decision.) Atheism is NOT a religion, nor is it an active belief. Simply speaking it is the LACK of belief in a deity. Also note that the term "Atheism" is a very broad, vague term. Atheism doesn't necessarily convey a nontheist's position any more than the term "Christianity" can be used to accurately define a theist's position. You wouldn't want me to judge all Christians by the KKK now would you?

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]But science and logic are the only infallible way to obtain truth--they are so by their nature.

In a world with so many fallicies, how can you assume that science is the only infallible way to obtrain truth?

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]While this is a loss for the Atheistic community, it most definately isn't a win for Christianity.

Just the fact he believes in a higher power is a win for Christianity. This guy is one of the most famous atheists of our time. This guy changing his beliefs would be the same as if Billy Graham decided he no longer believed in God.

Of course atheists such as Carrier are going to try and downplay it, it would be silly for them not to. After all, they have an anti-Christian image to protect.

Cory

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Dec. 10 2004,5:17)]

Quote[/b] ]But science and logic are the only infallible way to obtain truth--they are so by their nature.

In a world with so many fallicies, how can you assume that science is the only infallible way to obtrain truth?

Quite simply GP, it's not an assumption, it's a definition. Science, if performed correctly, is like a mathamatical proof: it is infallible. Same with logic. I suppose there could be other methods of obtaining infallible truth, but I have not yet heard of any.

 

[kraniac]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Dec. 10 2004,6:10)]Unfortunately, your rant only served to show your ignorance about Atheism.

It appears I have stepped on some athiest toes here. Before I respond, I here apologize for and ask forgiveness of any personal offenses taken from my previous post, especially to Dark Virtue and Mr. Bill. My calling atheism dumb was for the sake of proper English parallelism, not because I meant it. I should have rephrased to avoid saying something I didn't mean. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.


Ignorance about athiesm? Not ignorance: difference of opinion, perhaps, but I am not ignorant. The word "ignorant" would mean I was lacking knowledge-- facts-- about athiesm, which I certainly am not. You did see my sentence about my reading of Free Inquiry? That magazine is, in their own words, "dissenting press," which is openly hostile to all non-athiestic (yes, I know it's a double negative) worldviews. They publish a creed on the first page of every issue stating the beliefs of the CSH, which I have read many times. My father was a Secular Humanist for many years before converting to Universalist Unitarianism. I have talked directly with him and with many of his Secular Humanist friends, who have supplied me with information on their views. I am not lacking information; I am lacking the opinion that you desire me to hold.

You also stated:

Quote[/b] ]Atheism is NOT a religion, nor is it an active belief. Simply speaking it is the LACK of belief in a deity. Also note that the term "Atheism" is a very broad, vague term.

To say that athiesm is not a religion is to require a definition of religion. The definition that comes naturally to my mind, though it may differ with yours, is "a viewpoint on the subject of theology." Every man, therefore, has a religion, unless he be agnostic, in which case he is undecided.

Athiesm is also an active belief. I have assumed here that by "active belief" you mean a belief that requires a gap, however small, in rational scrutiny to be accepted. Athiesm is the belief that no god exists. Since this cannot be proven-- no finite being can ever prove that something is NOT possible-- it is an active belief, if I understand your terms correctly.

Sure, athiesm is a lack of belief in a deity. Theism is also a lack of belief in athiesm. Definition may include what something is not, but that something must still be defined by what that something is. To define athiesm as a lack of belief in a deity is to not define athiesm at all, but to define what athiesm is not. As I stated previously, athiesm is the belief that no god exists, a position held unilaterally by the CSH.

I do note the fact that athiesm is a very broad term. No man can define his religion by athiesm alone-- with no god to hold as highest priority in his life, he must choose something else. Perhaps I should have been more specific: When I referred to athiesm as a dumb religion (that was too harsh of me; I apologize a second time), I should have said "Secular Humanism" instead-- that is what I meant, given the context.

Then the following sentence:

Quote[/b] ]Atheism doesn't necessarily convey a nontheist's position any more than the term "Christianity" can be used to accurately define a theist's position.

This is a flawed analogy. Firstly, the terms "atheism" and "nontheism" are etymologically equal. Secondly, the term "Christianity" is an inadequate descriptor because of its specificity. Given my inference of your connotation of "nontheist", you think that "atheist" is more vague than "nontheist." Since, then, "atheism" is an inadequate descriptor of "nontheism" because of its generality, and "Christianity" is an inadequate descriptor of "theism" because of its specificity, the analogy breaks under opposite comparison.


On a separate issue, Mr. Bill is almost correct in stating that logic is infallible when performed correctly. What I hope he means here is that deductive reasoning is infallible when performed correctly. The other half of logic, inductive reasoning, is not infallible, even when performed correctly. Inductive reasoning can show that a statement is very likely true, but only deductive reasoning can absolutely prove a statement. Science is based on the scientific method, which is an inductive method of reason. Take physics as an example: Issac Newton is experimenting with mechanical physics and momenta. He has very good reason to believe, after performing dozens of experiments, that momentum, which he has defined as the product of mass and velocity, is a conserved quantity in any closed system. Issac Newton will never be able to measure with infinite accuracy, so there will always be a slight margin of error in his calculations, and additionally, he will never be able to experiment with every possible situation-- he would have to be immortal and have access to every physical object in the universe. So he will never be able to prove that "momentum is a conserved quantity in any closed system." If he could measure with infinite accuracy and never make any mathematical errors, he *could* prove that "momentum is a conserved quantity in all closed systems I have tested." But he obviously can't do either. The best he will be able to prove, then, is "momentum is likely a conserved quantity in all closed systems I have tested."

So, science, ideally, is an infallible method of obtaining truth. However, in practice it will never be infallible.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (kraniac @ Dec. 10 2004,11:06)]On a separate issue, Mr. Bill is almost correct in stating that logic is infallible when performed correctly. What I hope he means here is that deductive reasoning is infallible when performed correctly. The other half of logic, inductive reasoning, is not infallible, even when performed correctly. Inductive reasoning can show that a statement is very likely true, but only deductive reasoning can absolutely prove a statement. Science is based on the scientific method, which is an inductive method of reason. Take physics as an example: Issac Newton is experimenting with mechanical physics and momenta. He has very good reason to believe, after performing dozens of experiments, that momentum, which he has defined as the product of mass and velocity, is a conserved quantity in any closed system. Issac Newton will never be able to measure with infinite accuracy, so there will always be a slight margin of error in his calculations, and additionally, he will never be able to experiment with every possible situation-- he would have to be immortal and have access to every physical object in the universe. So he will never be able to prove that "momentum is a conserved quantity in any closed system." If he could measure with infinite accuracy and never make any mathematical errors, he *could* prove that "momentum is a conserved quantity in all closed systems I have tested." But he obviously can't do either. The best he will be able to prove, then, is "momentum is likely a conserved quantity in all closed systems I have tested."

So, science, ideally, is an infallible method of obtaining truth. However, in practice it will never be infallible.

You make a good point in making the distinction between deductive and inductive reason. True, conventional science can never create objective truth, but my point was that in theory it can. The process of analyzing evidence and drawing conclusions, if extended long enough, will allow us to arrive at the correct answer eventually. Of course, it is highly likley that no one will live that long, so yeah. A better example is logic and critical thinking, in which a sound arguement cannot be disproven.