PLEASE no flippant answers. I'm NOT trying to "convert" anyone. I genuinely am interested in your take on this MSNBC news story...
There is a God, leading atheist concludes
Philosopher says scientific evidence changed his mind
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 鈥?more or less 鈥?based on scientific evidence, and he says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting that belief is a mistake, the professor, 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.....
See link for continuation of the article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/... I am reading the article and am at the point where it states:
Yet biologists鈥?investigation of DNA 鈥渉as shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved,鈥?Flew says in the new video, 鈥淗as Science Discovered God?鈥?br>
This is an example of the argument of 'irreducible complexity'. While I understand why the argument may make sense to some, it is fallacious. Please see the expert on irreducible complexity from Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" in the link below (no one I have seen has explained the fallacy of this argument better than Dawkins):
http://richarddawkins.net/article,126,Wh...
I like that Flew insists on "following the evidence, where ever it leads". This is a positive stance to have because it makes sure that one keeps an open mind.
I strongly agree with the following exerpt from the article:
"Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God existed."
This is the stance that I, and most atheists I know, take. The burden of proof lies with the believer but I am open to looking at any proof provided and debating the topic with an open mind.
Very interesting article. Thank you for posting the link! Although I do admit I was a little disappointed in the fact that the article did not offer more information as to this evidence that led Flew to his conclusion. I think that "god" is nothing more than a nonsense word created by man to explain away all of the things we can't yet understand.
Religion is a disease of the mind, born of fear, which has done nothing but bring untold misery down upon the human race. He's getting senile and or scared of dying. He probably wants to get in good with whatever possible maker there might be before he dies. He's scared, which is the only reason to believe. So? It doesn't change the fact that there is no credible evidence. One change of mind doesn't influence me.
All he says is that complexity has convinced him to be a deist. He's still not into religion. He stil doesn't belive in a personal god. So really, very little has changed in his life. That's only one man's opinion. It means nothing to me. Theres also an article saying Mother Teresa actually questioned her belief in God, considering she may become a Saint i think thats more important than a professor who converted Well, I'm not an atheist, but this man sounds like a man who was open minded to whatever truth he may discover. His reasoning seems to be that life is too complex to have come about any way other than by intelligent design. That's an obviously flawed argument. Almost all of the athests here are smart enough to see what's wrong with that argument, so Flew must not have been among the brighter folks bearing the "atheist" label.
Since atheists' beliefs tend not to be based in authority or fame, Flew's "conversion" is pretty trivial. There are LOTS of people who believe in intelligent design. There are also lots of people who believe that it's hotter in the summer because the Earth is closer to the Sun. The fact that lots of people believe something doesn't say anything at all about whether or not it's true.
The article would be a lot more meaningful to atheists if Flew were able to give a good reason for believing in that "super-intelligence". He didn't, so it's just more of the same nonsense. ahem.....THERE IS NO GOD
i dont care wat this guy says but i am going to liv my life not waste it away in some church or home praying to someone that doesnt exist GROW UP all the gods in the world cant be real wat about the mayan god and the sun god ect there are thousands all made up and u believe ur right? give me a break As one grows in years and approaches death, it is hard to accept that we are likely to cease functioning in entirety. This seems to be the case of the professor in this article. where's his proof? Just because he can't explain something doesn't mean anything. There are a lot of these conversion stories, often featuring high profile atheists. Often they are fabricated or at the very least inflated.
I think this article has little worth. I know about Anthony Flew's "conversion".
Ah, what do I think of it? I think he's a very old man who has documented dementia. That's the most important thing. Secondly, he believes in a very vague "first cause" sort of god. Not Jehovah of the bible. He believes in a vague "force."
I have a hard time understanding why Christians are crowing about this so much. An old man who has been shown to have clinical dementia, believing in a "force" doesn't really do much for the god of Christianity. That was years ago. Hey, everyone makes a mistake now and then.
He's not the first atheist to flip. But I wonder what the ratio is between atheists that go to agnostic or religious versus agnostics and believers who turn atheist? At the least, I'd guess they were the same; but if they weren't even, Id guess that more believers become atheist than the other way around - but I don't know. Well, the whole Flew thing is a bit old now, but..
Good for him. I don't think that a philosopher can be considered an expert in the advanced sciences that deal with things like the genesis of life and the origins of the universe. I don't go to medical doctors with questions about literary theory, and I won't go to a philosopher with questions about quantum physics or incredibly advanced biology. He still didn't believe in creationism or Christianity. So one man changed his mind from non-theism, so what ? Many non-theists were formerly theists ? Is this supposed to prove something ?
Sorry if that sounded flippant, I know you said you didn't want flippant answers, but really, people change their minds everyday about many things. The main difference is that they don't get a press conference when they change their minds about something. I was a fervent Catholic until age 13, then I realized it wasn't true, but I didn't call a press conference, and nobody read about it in the paper, or had the opportunity to speculate on my change of mind.
What is the point you are trying to make with this three year old article ? This is a true scientist.
He doesn't confuse God with organized religion, like so many atheists on Yahoo answers do.
They have been reading too much Richard Dawkins and can't think for themselves, obviously. Interesting. What he suggests doesn't go against the Tao, so I'm pleased with it. In either event, he in no way agrees with the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic paradigms, relating them to Cosmic Saddams. I liked that bit. Good for Flew.
Still, I think that he's losing it a bit. A philosopher should never say that something can never happen. It's definitely possible for anything complex to evolve by chance. In fact, chance, by its very definition, implies that everything within it can happen. First off I am a Believer
But these are just statements, with no information to support them,
Some people decied to believe after many years?
What is the point you are trying to make.??
de路ism (dzm, d-) KEY
NOUN:
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
Meg ........"鈥淚鈥檓 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,鈥?he said. 鈥淚t could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.鈥?br>
He is certainly not endorsing anything more than deism,he is quite specific of his contempt for Christianity.He is old,he is a philosopher,not a scientist.Deism isn't neccessary to disprove,no dogma. This is an ancient article. 2004.
When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god". When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with "Certainly not", stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had abandoned his atheism or converted to Christianity. This is a great article, very interesting. and Flew has been a leading Atheist for many years.
I think he may be making a mistake by drawing conclusions without all the evidence here though.
Based on religious conclusions being continually disproved by science, I think it is more likely that additional information is needed about the evolution of DNA to indicate how it came to exist, rather than automatically assigning a 'higher power' to its existence.
I think Flew is making a common mistake of assigning 'god' to the unknown. He may be right, and it may be proven, one day that an intelligent being or presence did create life, but until we have enough evidence to make that statement, I think he is being premature.
Especially when compared to everything we as humans have assigned to God in the past when we didn't know about it. (Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Thunderstorms, Stars, the Moon, the Sun etc...) The article only offers vague referrences as to the nature of the "evidence" that led him to his conclusion. It looks to me as though he has fallen into the age old trap that leads to "goddidit" when no other definitive answer can be found. At age 81 it could be that he's losing his drive and giving into easy answers. Well..every one has a right to change their mind however, if it was THAT scientific and has been proven...why has it not been made public knowledge?! You cannot argue with faith, believe me Ive tried...maybe as hes getting old he WANTS to believe in a sky pixie...as people get older and start losing their mind they will believe all manner of things :) First off he is not our leader (as the article loosely implied), we don't have a leader that I know of.
"Flew accepted only a 鈥渕inimal God鈥?and believed in no afterlife"
"Flew said he was best labeled a deist, like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people鈥檚 lives."
So he did not say he believes in Christianity or any other religion he believes an intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and that intelligence does not communicate with us.
He may have written books and he may have been super intelligent but he is just one guy who is stating an opinion just like everyone else. He has no Divine knowledge and questions our existence like the rest of us. I would say he questions it more because he made a career out of it.
Based on my beliefs and the evidence that I have seen i believe as he does. God with no communication. We are an ant farm that he got bored of. LOL Wow, so what? An old guy on the verge of death had an epithany. Just as easily as he could have become instantly senile.
At the end of the day fella you hate people who dont agree with your made up religion. Why not revert back to your holy book cause youre never gonna get the grip of real life are you! Its gonna be a shame when you die and nothing happens....your soul just simply fades away and you wont even be conscience enough to realize you'd wasted your whole life on believing in your crappy Allah! Tough cookie you narrow minded fool. Senile Dementia, usually sets in around 80. Flew equates complexity with god. He believes the more complex something is, the more likely god exists. It's just another goddidit card. Read the Bible and you'll know who made the Heavens and the earth. :p | 