Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

spacefreak · Dec 9, 2004, 07:52 PM

I've never really gotten into the rabid religious debates that go on here, but I found this to be an interesting article regarding a famous atheist who, after decades of denying and publishing works aimed at disproving God, now feels that there is a higher power. Apparently, his switch in beliefs is based on scientific evidence.

Here's the article...

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 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."

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.

aberdeenwriter · Dec 9, 2004, 08:25 PM

All that remains is for him to endorse Tony Blair and he'll be able to rest in peace!

Zimphire · Dec 9, 2004, 09:49 PM

He found common sense.

macintologist · Dec 9, 2004, 10:29 PM

Well, only 28% of 18-30 year olds attend church regularly. That's the future generation.

Religion is dying a slow and painful death. Look at all the sins happening in our world. Like gay marriage, and kids reading Harry Potter and jerking off at will (like most normal teenagers).

Theocracy is the antithesis of liberty.

SimpleLife · Dec 9, 2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He found common sense.

He's scared shitless of dying.

Zimphire · Dec 9, 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by macintologist:
Well, only 28% of 18-30 year olds attend church regularly. That's the future generation.

People tend to pick back up religion in their 30s for some reason.

Religion is dying a slow and painful death. Look at all the sins happening in our world. Like gay marriage, and kids reading Harry Potter and jerking off at will (like most normal teenagers).

Theocracy is the antithesis of liberty.

Just like the Bible said would happen.

Zimphire · Dec 9, 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
He's scared shitless of dying.

He doesn't believe in that type of God. Just a powerful being that started this all.

zigzag · Dec 10, 2004, 12:12 AM

This is just a variation on the res ipsa loquitur approach, i.e. "I don't have a concrete explanation for the origin of life, therefore I conclude that it must have been designed." That's fine if it makes you happy, but it doesn't prove anything other than the fact that we don't have a concrete explanation.

Native Americans used to think that rain came from doing dances that appealed to one or another god. They didn't have a better explanation. This isn't much different. So, while this guy's perspective might make for interesting conversation, I would put more money on an accomplished scientist like Richard Dawkins.

If he starts proclaiming that God wants us to wear our hair a certain way or doesn't want us to eat certain foods on Fridays, then I'll be worried.

Spliffdaddy · Dec 10, 2004, 12:19 AM

Just do like I do.

Try to be the best person you can be - and if there's an afterlife, you'll probably qualify.

If there's no afterlife, then at least you'll be remembered as a good person by those who still live.

Either way you can't lose.

aberdeenwriter · Dec 10, 2004, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
This is just a variation on the res ipsa loquitur approach, i.e. "I don't have a concrete explanation for the origin of life, therefore I conclude that it must have been designed." That's fine if it makes you happy, but it doesn't prove anything other than the fact that we don't have a concrete explanation.

Native Americans used to think that rain came from doing dances that appealed to one or another god. They didn't have a better explanation. This isn't much different. So, while this guy's perspective might make for interesting conversation, I would put more money on an accomplished scientist like Richard Dawkins.

If he starts proclaiming that God wants us to wear our hair a certain way or doesn't want us to eat certain foods on Fridays, then I'll be worried.

Man seems to have a need to believe in a higher being(s)...even before the recognition of our current God(s) people always seemed to worship and/or believe in something.

Mithras · Dec 10, 2004, 12:59 AM

everybody loves a convert. whether it's someone forsaking religion, adopting one, or leaping from liberal to conservative or back again.

thing is, i think that there is more an "extreme personality" than anything else. these folks just like living on the extreme and provoking people with their iconoclastic beliefs...

Scientist · Dec 10, 2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Man seems to have a need to believe in a higher being(s)...even before the recognition of our current God(s) people always seemed to worship and/or believe in something.

Yes. This is all the more reason to distrust the whole "god" concept.

koogz · Dec 10, 2004, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Scientist:
Yes. This is all the more reason to distrust the whole "god" concept.

Only if one believes in a false god such as science.

Scientist · Dec 10, 2004, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by koogz:
Only if one believes in a false god such as science.

Truth is in the mind of the beholder.

koogz · Dec 10, 2004, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Scientist:
Truth is in the mind of the beholder.

The beholder in this case is God, and he is in each an every one of us, weather we believe in him or not.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Dec 10, 2004, 01:53 AM

Well I am sold, where do I sign up?

Mithras · Dec 10, 2004, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Man seems to have a need to believe in a higher being(s)...even before the recognition of our current God(s) people always seemed to worship and/or believe in something.

Man has also historically shown a great propensity to
* kill people of foreign tribes
* have sex with as many people as possible
* put women in subservient roles

which I don't find particularly recommendable either.

roberto blanco · Dec 10, 2004, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Man seems to have a need to believe in a higher being(s)...even before the recognition of our current God(s) people always seemed to worship and/or believe in something.

absolutely wrong.

roberto blanco · Dec 10, 2004, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by macintologist:
Well, only 28% of 18-30 year olds attend church regularly. That's the future generation.

here it's less than 2% in that age group. if you walk by a church and take a peak in, most of the attendants will be over 70.

koogz · Dec 10, 2004, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
here it's less than 2% in that age group. if you walk by a church and take a peak in, most of the attendants will be over 70.

I'm going to reply to two of your inane posts at once.

You are absolutely wrong on both counts.

When do you poke you little head into the church? People of all ages go at different times usually. What denomination? Non-denominationals are quite a draw for younger people.

Our churches are packed with all ages, and you are just ignorant if you think you can pass that 70 year-olds only lie.

Wiskedjak · Dec 10, 2004, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Topic: Famous Atheist now believes in [the possibility of a god]

Fixed

roberto blanco · Dec 10, 2004, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by koogz:
I'm going to reply to two of your inane posts at once.

You are absolutely wrong on both counts.

wtf. want to back up your claim? mmmkay.

Originally posted by koogz:
When do you poke you little head into the church?

:: LAFFO ::

actually i walk past them at various times on a sunday morning after coming home from a long night of drinking, dancing and doing various other 'hedonistic' things. *g*

i obviously don't live in the us.

Scientist · 04:05 AM

Originally posted by koogz:
The beholder in this case is God, and he is in each an every one of us, weather we believe in him or not.

Humans are hopelessly ignorant. And yes, that includes me.

In the grand scheme of things we are just little blobs with barely enough intelligence for survival. Any ideas we come up with are only the roughest of models, relevant only with relation to our little niches in this expansive, unknown universe.

Stradlater · Dec 10, 2004, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He found common sense.

He's "far" from Christian. Calm down, soiled-pants.

roberto blanco · Dec 10, 2004, 03:57 AM

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?"

where's the connection, sherlock? this is just really really stupid.

'oh, it's very complex, so some higher being HAD TO BE involved'...rrrrright.

Taliesin · Dec 10, 2004, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Man seems to have a need to believe in a higher being(s)...even before the recognition of our current God(s) people always seemed to worship and/or believe in something.

That shouldn't be a surprise if you believe in the Quran. According to the Quran, Adam, the first human, was also the first prophet and from then on numerous prophets and messages about God and after-life etc... were sent by God to the humans. That is only logical, since humans die in every generation, and it would be somehow unfair, if the early humans were sent into hell, without having heard about a message from God, and therefore not knowing that there is a God that expects that humans believe in him and act accordingly...

So, yes, way before the scriptured religions of Abraham and co came up, there were numerous prophets and messages and religions way back to Adam and friends.

Taliesin

gatekeeper · Dec 10, 2004, 08:55 AM

Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of

The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe.... He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life. But he is still unsure. In fact, he asked that I not directly quote him yet, until he finally composes his new introduction to a final edition of his book God and Philosophy, due out next year. He hasn't completed it yet, precisely because he is still examining the evidence and thinking things over.

December 2004, Flew has now given me permission to quote him directly. I asked him point blank what he would mean if he ever asserted that "probably God exists," to which he responded (in a letter in his own hand, dated 19 October 2004):

"I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."

Looks like fundamentalists can't start using the "God exists because Antony Flew thinks so" fallacy just yet

UNTeMac · Dec 10, 2004, 10:54 AM

Like zigzag said:
This is just a variation on the res ipsa loquitur approach, i.e. "I don't have a concrete explanation for the origin of life, therefore I conclude that it must have been designed." That's fine if it makes you happy, but it doesn't prove anything other than the fact that we don't have a concrete explanation.

It makes me happy but I don't accept it as science and I don't say I "know" it either. This guy is just getting attention.

Koogz, you are one inflammatory dude. I think we'll see you banned a few weeks when you step over the line.

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Stradlater:
He's "far" from Christian. Calm down, soiled-pants.

Where did I say anything about Christianity mr knee jerker?

Get a grip.

Stradlater · Dec 10, 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Where did I say anything about Christianity mr knee jerker?

Get a grip.

You didn't have to say anything about it, you exude it.

Anyways, this guy definitely found "common" sense, as you say; which is a pity...I prefer the extraordinary to common any day.

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You didn't have to say anything about it, you exude it.

What a poor excuse for you knee-jerking.

I assure you I wasn't referring to Christianity.

Start taking responsibilities for your own actions. You'll gain more credibility.

spacefreak · Dec 10, 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Fixed

Perhaps you want to contact ABC News regarding their faulty headline.

spacefreak · Dec 10, 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
absolutely wrong.

You're the one who is wrong. Historically, civilizations have pretty much always worshipped some sort of higher being(s).

Dakar · Dec 10, 2004, 03:06 PM

Meh, he basically says what any reasonable [atheist] would. Higher being(s) may exist. Until we can come up with a plausible explanation for the creation of the universe, that will continue to be the front runner.

Wiskedjak · Dec 10, 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Perhaps you want to contact ABC News regarding their faulty headline.

Excellent point. I shall do just that.

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Meh, he basically says what any reasonable [atheist] would. Higher being(s) may exist. Until we can come up with a plausible explanation for the creation of the universe, that will continue to be the front runner.

That isn't what he said at all.

The power of self delusion in this thread amazes me.

waits for the spin...

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Excellent point. I shall do just that.

Please post a screenshot of the reply IF you get one.

Dakar · Dec 10, 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That isn't what he said at all.

The power of self delusion in this thread amazes me.

waits for the spin...

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.

How does that contradict what I said?

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 03:21 PM

Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe.

There is a difference between "might have" or "maybe" and "must have"

"To be compelled, as by a physical necessity or requirement"

Also atheists don't go around admitting to this like he is doing unless they believe.

Wiskedjak · Dec 10, 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Please post a screenshot of the reply IF you get one.

I'm sure I won't. I was surprised to get a reply from spacefreak

Dakar · Dec 10, 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe.

There is a difference between "might have" or "maybe" and "must have"

"To be compelled, as by a physical necessity or requirement"

Also atheists don't go around admitting to this like he is doing unless they believe.

Sounds like he's still fence sitting to me.

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Sounds like he's still fence sitting to me.

LAWL! Consider the source.

Dakar · Dec 10, 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LAWL! Consider the source.

He actually spoke the guy. He basically says, "Give me till my book comes out."

Shaddim · Dec 10, 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
He's scared shitless of dying.

Yeah, like you know him...

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 04:18 PM

The guy himself said there MUST be a higher power that causes this all.

That isn't a maybe, or sorta.

Give me a site other than an atheist backed one and we will talk.

Most of that article was filled with the author suggesting, or adding his own "color" into it. And was highly biased .

It would be like me saying he was Christian, and then giving you a Christian site to back it up.

Shaddim · Dec 10, 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Well I am sold, where do I sign up?

We've already known that for some time now. Glad to see you're finally coming out of the closet.

Dakar · Dec 10, 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The guy himself said there MUST be a higher power that causes this all.

That isn't a maybe, or sorta.

And he says probably in the other article. He' still trying to decide.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Give me a site other than an atheist backed one and we will talk.

No thanks, I'm not going to let you dictate the terms of the debate. If you don't like the site, fine. As far as I'm concerned, just sticking to the actual quotes of Flew in that article paints the picture of someone still trying to figure it out.

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
And he says probably in the other article. He' still trying to decide.

Hahah, he said MUST and PROBABLY. He has decided.

No thanks, I'm not going to let you dictate the terms of the debate. If you don't like the site, fine. As far as I'm concerned, just sticking to the actual quotes of Flew in that article paints the picture of someone still trying to figure it out.

In other words, you have nothing.

A atheist run web site isn't a partisan or non-biased source of info. Nor would I trust anything it said.

If you were to use that evidence in something that actually mattered, you'd have been laughed at.

That is all I am saying.

Dakar · Dec 10, 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Hahah, he said MUST and PROBABLY. He has decided. [/B]

Probably /= Must.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
A atheist run web site isn't a partisan or non-biased source of info. Nor would I trust anything it said.

And I don't consider the AP the end-all be-all of information regarding the matter when there's someone who holds correspondance with him with additional info.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If you were to use that evidence in something that actually mattered, you'd have been laughed at.

If this were something that mattered I'd want to actually talk to the guy, rather than draw a conclusion from two articles painting incomplete pictures. Or, I could just wait for his book for the final decision.

Zimphire · Dec 10, 2004, 04:46 PM

Yes one article not having any agenda, and another having one.

Anyhow. Not that it matters.

The main thing I am trying to point out is, it doesn't take a crazy or small mind to look all around us, and see how it cannot be just an accident.

Some of this world's greatest minds while not always religious, have come to the same conclusion.