[Toner]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

Thu Dec 9, 4:57 PM ET U.S. National - AP

By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer

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 — 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 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.

Link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/believing_atheist)

___________________________________

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.
I was thinking the change of mind might be due to the fact he's near the end of his life but this would indicate otherwise...

[Flint]

Ah yes, another God of the Gaps. So Flew's "minimal god" is actually a synonym for "I don't know how our universe got started or turned out the way it did, and I'm unwilling to admit (gasp!) ignorance, so I'll believe some intelligence did it." Flew doesn't seem to realize that "god did it" isn't an explanation of anything at all, but simply an admission that he doesn't know and won't say that.

Available evidence, of course, is indirect and woefully incomplete. We can retrocalculate from an expanding universe going forward, to a shrinking universe going backwards. There are some indications that the universe started from a point source, though models permit a larger aperture without contradicting what little we know. We can even describe what might have happened in the early (first Planck time, 10^-43 seconds) expansion, as required to fit what our "most probable" equations indicate.

Cosmologists don't hold to any certainties at all, and readily admit that their "most probable" models aren't very probable in any sense of confidence. Any new observation any day could trash them all, and nobody would be surprised. But what Flew has done is simply given up, thrown his hands in the air, and pushed the problem down the stack one iteration. NOW, unfortunately, Flew must explain where his "intelligence" came from. Was it created by a yet earlier intelligence? Or will Flew realize the circularity of this approach? Maybe, at age 81, he figures he'll die soon enough that he doesn't need to defend himself very much longer?

[Robert]

Here’s an interesting piece:

Pascal’s wager:
If we become nothing after death we will not be there to regret having prepared for something. But if we are something after death, and we have not prepared at all or are badly prepared, then we will long feel bitter, painful regret. So we have everything to lose by not preparing and nothing to gain; we have everything to gain by preparing and nothing to lose.

And Pascal’s wager in reverse:
If due to an inevitable destiny of soul , an Omnipotent Being will save us no matter what we do, we will not regret having spent a bit of time preparing unnecessarily to save ourselves. But if there are no such beings or if there are divine beings more powerful then us who can help if we are prepared to accept their help, then we will deeply regret for a very long time our failure to prepare for their help.

As far as the beginning of the universe ‘we can describe what might have happened’. Exactly, we’re guessing. We simply don’t know.

So the dilemma is that we can’t prove the existence of ‘god’ and we can’t establish an origin to the universe if it indeed has one.
We do however have some indicators that there is more to our universe then our five senses dictate.
We have the very compelling progression of reincarnated Dalai Lamas in Buddhism, picked from exacting tests. But perhaps ‘god’ if he does exist comes to each individual and not through religious systems?
Here’s a story like to tell that happened to me and while it doesn’t prove the existence of ‘god’ it does prove that there is a ‘force’ or ‘forces’ beyond our common senses.
When I was a young man I, like many kids, drove fast. I loved to drive fast and drag race. One day I was driving along and for some unknown reason I slowed down, not to just the speed limit but to 15 mph which was well below it. Several seconds later a boy ran out between two cars after a ball that preceded him in the street. Had I not been driving slowly I would have very likely killed him.
So what was this force? Because it was not a ‘force’ that saved me directly. I didn’t slow down for an unseen obstacle in the road, it was a force that for some reason, circumvented suffering that I and another individual would have been involved in.
That ‘force’ followed me into other endeavors and it did save my life more then once. Why? Why me? What is it? We don’t know but we know it is there.
Should we blindly follow a religion, a book that doesn’t fit within our reason? Should god be above reason? No, I don’t think so but I think it would be foolish not inquire into the possibility that there is something beyond our material universe. How do we do it? On an individual basis and I believe this ‘force’ is not just there for me, it is there for everyone and that this force has or will indicate its presence to everyone at some point in their fragile existence. So perhaps each of us might want to think back in our lives to incidents that indicate its presence.

[Dynamo]

Thanks, Robert, for your thoughtful response. I, like your drag racer example, have had my fat pulled out of the fire so many times that I can't continue to assume that it was by accident. No way could I convince a non-believer by these many near misses, but I know many others who say the same thing. Of course there is no empirical evidence of a God. He can't show His hand and expect us to have free choice.
I've always wanted to know what the theory is as to what happened before the "Big Bang"?

[Chills]

on second thought....I take a pass on that one. :beer:

[SmartAZ]

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 — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
He doesn't believe in a god, he still believes his own logic is supreme.

[Flint]

SmartAZ is basically correct. Flew's original position (that got all the publicity) was "I don't know how it happened, therefore it must have had an intelligent cause." This logicial idiocy was promptly pounced on by the media, who described it as a conversion to (their) religion.

Meanwhile, many people explained to Flew that his claim was idiotic. Scientists and logicians pointed out that Flew's ignorance is NOT evidence of anything, and it's logically unsupportable to argue "Not A, therefore B." Especially when the "Not A" part isn't even known, and at least scientists consider A (that is, natural causes) is probably true even if it's not fully explained.

And theologians were even MORE upset. They explained to Flew that God does not hide His glory in the dark crannies of human ignorance. For them, God is most evident in what IS known, rather than what is not. For most theologians, a God who constructs the nature of reality itself so that life can (and perhaps must) arise is far greater than a God who waves some magic wand to correct errors later.

And as a result, last I read, Flew had rescinded his claims, admitted he knew zilch about biology, and recognized that his personal ignorance said nothing about God one way or another. The media didn't cover this, of course.

[H2O]

I would enjoy reading what some of you think was out there or in there before the big bang and just what is beyond this universe. OH and where did it all come from.. :)

[Flint]

H2O:

To the best of my understanding, time started at the big bang. There was no "before", the concept doesn't apply. Whether there is anything "beyond" this universe may also be a meaningless question, but I don't think anyone knows. Where it came from is also unknown.

Now, I'll cheerfully admit that faced with sheer lack of any useful data, we can MAKE UP anything we please. You are limited only by your imagination in this respect. The normal problem with making up gods and then saying the gods did it all is, where did the gods come from? Sooner or later, anyone who doesn't wish to abandon their intellectual integrity must answer this question or admit they can't. And if they can't, they are only pretending to have answers they lack. In other words, they are ALSO just making stuff up, but aren't honest enough to admit it.

[Hokey]

they are ALSO just making stuff up, but aren't honest enough to admit it.

Excellent! That about sums it all up. Quote of the day.

:beer:

[H2O]

Very well Flint

Seems you have alot of Faith after all.

Quote
To the best of my understanding, time started at the big bang.

[Flint]

H2O:

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What faith do you mean? Current big bang models (which are all mathematical) indicate that space-time (all the dimensions we know, and time is one dimension) came into being together. The equations simply have no solution "before" anything existed.

Does this make the math either wrong or right? Nope, neither. Does one need faith to try to understand the math? That's a matter of opinion. I personally consider knowledge and learning to require the opposite of faith, namely intelligence. YMMV.

[nanna]

In my opinion the presumption that time is linear, and therefore had a "beginning", is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, either.

FWIW



nanna

[north runner]

The universe is a flewed creation therefore God is imperfect.

Oops/ :lol:

God instructed us to find Him but he forgot the triptik.

If mankind is the best He can do.....?

[H2O]

Flint I think you understand perfectly what I meant.

Does this make the math either wrong or right? Nope, neither. Does one need faith to try to understand the math? That's a matter of opinion. I personally consider knowledge and learning to require the opposite of faith, namely intelligence. YMMV.

The faith comes in when you base your belief systems upon knowledge and learning and intelligence Alone ! I have got no beef with learning, but some and I think this includes you, refuse to look at the GOD FACTOR !

-------------


In my opinion the presumption that time is linear, and therefore had a "beginning", is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, either.


Nanna I think the above is pretty much, what God has to say about it as well !
So I agree with your comment.

[Flint]

H20:

The faith comes in when you base your belief systems upon knowledge and learning and intelligence Alone !As I wrote earlier, I personally consider knowledge and learning to require the opposite of faith, namely intelligence. I stand by this statement. I'm willing to say "I don't know" when I don't know. And when it comes to much about the big bang, I don't know. You don't know either. I can admit it. You can't.

I have got no beef with learning, but some and I think this includes you, refuse to look at the GOD FACTOR !I guess you're right. I don't make up imaginary invisible magicians in the sky, who came from nowhere and don't do anything detectible, to use as a way to avoid admitting I don't know what I don't know. Personally, I think you are being incredibly dishonest. You can MAKE UP excuses why you don't know anything, or you can go out and LEARN something. Your "god factor" is the former, a pure excuse. It fully explains why you don't know anything.

[Libertarian]

Robert, Pascal's wager presupposes that you prepare for the right *whatever* Preparing for the wrong one might be worse than not preparing at all. A jealous god might forgive no attention easier than paying attention to another.