Quantcast

World's Leading Atheist Now Believes in God... Sorta...

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
:evil:


Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
AP Wire | 9 Dec

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."

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.
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,839
15
So Cal
Skookum said:
i have given up believing in N8. Worst ripoff religion out there....
N8iscism?
N8ology?
N8lam?
N8ism?
JuN8ism?
N8hova Witnesses?

So many options... only one true N8.
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,184
0
in a bear cave
Ciaran said:
N8iscism?
N8ology?
N8lam?
N8ism?
JuN8ism?
N8hova Witnesses?

So many options... only one true N8.
N8ist
N8mom Church of Latter Day N8's
N8ddhism
N8ie Krishna
N8acostal
N8olic
N8du
N8nostic

it goes on and on......

*edit* gotta throw in Eastern N8adox too....
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,839
15
So Cal
Skookum said:
N8ist
N8mom Church of Latter Day N8's
N8ddhism
N8ie Krishna
N8acostal
N8olic
N8du
N8nostic

it goes on and on......

*edit* gotta throw in Eastern N8adox too....
N8mom Church of Latter Day N8's <--- That was hilarious!
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,101
1,153
NC
Isn't Mel Gibson directing a new movie, "The Passion of the N8"?


N8 came to me in a dream and told me to eat my bagel with butter instead of cream cheese this morning, so I did. It was yummy. As long as he doesn't ban pork products, N8ianity is a religion I can get on board with.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,101
1,153
NC
Andyman_1970 said:
Railing on N8 aside (humorus as it may be), it's interesting no one has commented on the article....................
Eh... I chalk this up as another "So what?" article.

People change their minds all the time about religion. I dated a girl several years ago who was atheist and since she started dating a religious guy, she's done a complete turnaround - she now tells her non-religious friends that she prays for them every day, hoping that they'll find Christ. She's a Creationist now as well, which is interesting considering how scientifically-minded she is (biology major, interested in chemistry, becoming a veterinarian).

So, this guy happens to be a little more vocal than the rest of the world, previously about his atheism, now about his belief in God. Snore... Wake me when something interesting happens.

It's not like this article put forth any new ideas.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Andyman_1970 said:
Ok................. :rolleyes: So much for trying to start a discussion.
Andy, it's because whilst this very influential and respected scientific figure now believes that the theory of evolution is flawed and there may be some form of higher power yet has not postulated that the Earth is but 6000 years old he is hard to attack.

Apologies for the long sentence.

Once again I will say that creationism is a valid hypothesis...
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,101
1,153
NC
Andyman_1970 said:
Ok................. :rolleyes: So much for trying to start a discussion.
Hmm...? Others are, of course, welcome to discuss, I was just stating why my only comment wasn't about the article - simply because I didn't find the article interesting.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,101
1,153
NC
fluff said:
Andy, it's because whilst this very influential and respected scientific figure now believes that the theory of evolution is flawed and there may be some form of higher power yet has not postulated that the Earth is but 6000 years old he is hard to attack.
I'm sorry.. I read that several times and I still don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm probably just being stupid; can you explain what you mean?
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
binary visions said:
I'm sorry.. I read that several times and I still don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm probably just being stupid; can you explain what you mean?
Whilst this very influential and respected scientific figure now believes that;
1. the theory of evolution is flawed,
2. and there may be some form of higher power,
he has not postulated that the Earth is only 6000 years old so his view is hard to attack.

(Most anti-creationist attacks focus on certain Christian groups who interpret the Bible to mean the Earth was created by God 6000 years ago. This guy us saying there may well be a higher intelligence but not necessarily any of the Gods of existing religions.)

Hope that Helps
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,101
1,153
NC
fluff said:
Hope that Helps
:thumb: Gotcha.

Intelligent design is an interesting theory and, as a pretty logically-minded person, is far easier for me to swallow than the fundamental creationist theory.

In many ways, the intelligent design theory fills some of the gaps of existing evolutionary theory. Not to say either one is right or wrong, but the willingness to accept that something as unbelievably complex as a human being evolved out of single celled organisms by pure chance is, to me, just as "off the wall" as the willingness to accept that, *poof*, the world was created in seven days by God.

Intelligent design fills a large void in both theories.

Wish I didn't spend so much of my days working lately. I'd love to add this (intelligent design) to my list of things to research and learn about. I believe in evolution, but I do believe that there is more to the story than chance mutations.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,370
7,766
bv, how much biology have you taken? in particular genetics. common elements within the genomes of different species strongly suggest that they share common ancestors, while seemingly random and useless elements also shared suggest an evolutionary process rather than intelligent design*. of course you could suppose that everything is placed exactly as it is by god, or descartes' great deceiver, but imo that view is akin to running around with your hands over your eyes, renouncing the world's existence since you can't see it.

* some of these elements are thought to be from responses way back when to ancient retroviruses (hiv is a retrovirus), see the whole mechanism of RNA interference for more if you're interested
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,101
1,153
NC
Toshi said:
bv, how much biology have you taken? in particular genetics. common elements within the genomes of different species strongly suggest that they share common ancestors, while seemingly random and useless elements also shared suggest an evolutionary process rather than intelligent design*. of course you could suppose that everything is placed exactly as it is by god, or descartes' great deceiver, but imo that view is akin to running around with your hands over your eyes, renouncing the world's existence since you can't see it.
I've taken a few semesters of biology and had a class that spent half a semester focused on genetics. So, I've got some education on the subject but not as much as I'd like.

Again, I'm a strong believer in evolution, and I'm under no impressions that everything is placed exactly as it is supposed to be by God Himself, I simply feel - the key word being feel, as I've no evidence to support it - that there must be a greater force at work, above and beyond Darwinism. I don't swallow all aspects of the intelligent design theory either, but it has some merit in that there are many things that we cannot explain and we may have to admit the possibility that they are simply not explainable through our normal senses.

For instance, what drives all things to replicate? Everything on the planet has a mad desire to propagate - big, small, complex, simple, everything spends its entire lifecycle trying to produce offspring. You can't point at something physical and say, "this is why" - it's just the way life works. So we accept it and move on - yet many of the same people who can't explain why everything has the innate desire to reproduce, scoff at any theory besides pure evolution and demand proof.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,370
7,766
at a basic molecular things don't have any "desires". take a piece of rna within a bilipid membrane. if this rna catalyzes the formation of rna like it then it will become more abundant. this didn't arise out of any desire on the part of the rna, but just out of its catalytic ability.

this question is different for us, of course, and this is where the philosophers and general hand wavers come in. but for most other things and creatures i can't see how you would see a sticking point in the "innate desire to reproduce" -- things that reproduce stick around, things that don't die off, like the quakers. :D

i think the best argument for evolution is that it is the simplest means. occam's razor and all. you can postulate endlessly about design and deeper function, but until there is evidence that supports that theory to the exclusion of all others it will be a very hard pill to swallow.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,101
1,153
NC
Toshi said:
i can't see how you would see a sticking point in the "innate desire to reproduce" -- things that reproduce stick around, things that don't die off, like the quakers. :D
It's not a sticking point, it's just an example of something that happens without a physical explanation for it. To me, it simply indicates that the sticklers for "proof of everything" aren't necessarily correct in their quest. And the fact that a select group of people chose to ignore an innate desire (and an enjoyable pasttime :p ) hardly enters into it ;) :D

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm only thinking out loud. Keep in mind that applying occam's razor to come to the conclusion of evolution only works if you start from the point of view that there is not an all powerful God who is capable of creating everything. If you start with the premise that there is a God, and He is omnipotent, would it not be a simpler task to begin with an exertion of His will, rather than billions and billions of years of planetary formation and evolution?

Just playing devil's advocate.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
As my high school Latin teacher once said, "Evolution is like having a sea of random car parts that eventually washes up a Buick." Right or not, I always thought that was funny.

I thought the article was interesting, but I don't really know what to say about it. I guess it's a problem I am still working out myself, so I can't comment too much on anything specifically, other than I thought it was interesting.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,370
7,766
JRogers said:
As my high school Latin teacher once said, "Evolution is like having a sea of random car parts that eventually washes up a Buick." Right or not, I always thought that was funny.
if each pairwise co-mingling of car parts gave the pair an edge in survival, and this process was repeated ad infinitum, then yes, your cynical latin teacher would be correct.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
binary visions said:
:thumb: Gotcha.

Intelligent design is an interesting theory and, as a pretty logically-minded person, is far easier for me to swallow than the fundamental creationist theory.

In many ways, the intelligent design theory fills some of the gaps of existing evolutionary theory. Not to say either one is right or wrong, but the willingness to accept that something as unbelievably complex as a human being evolved out of single celled organisms by pure chance is, to me, just as "off the wall" as the willingness to accept that, *poof*, the world was created in seven days by God.

Intelligent design fills a large void in both theories.

Wish I didn't spend so much of my days working lately. I'd love to add this (intelligent design) to my list of things to research and learn about. I believe in evolution, but I do believe that there is more to the story than chance mutations.
If you don't have an explanation of where the designer came from, you still have the *poof* issue. The complexity issue is totally different, and not that hard to accept if you can wrap your head around the algorithmic process and the amount of time involved.

There are a lot of problems that intelligent design doesn't really help out with either:

1. Why do squid have better designed eyes than humans? Of course, this doesn't prove that there is no designer...just that God happens to have tentacles, I guess.

2. Why are my testicles so damn exposed? I've taken enough shots to the groin to know that any half ass decent engineer could have figured out a better system than that. Same thing though, God could be a woman :)
 

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
N8 said:
:evil:


Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
AP Wire | 9 Dec

A British philosophy professor ..... now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence......

A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said.......

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." ........

"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.......

He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.
QUOTE]

I understand this fellow is a Philosophy professor. This hardly qualifies him to judge scientific findings for their veracity. It seems the only reason he believes in a god is that he can't figure out how the first lifeform appeared. Well, a Cro-Magnon, if faced with a cell phone, might have just about the same conclusion, after he recovered enough to come out from under the table. I figure if you believe in a god, good on ya, but it's a matter of faith and probably always will be. The fact is that evolution is the best explanation for life as it is today, even if the theory is not bulletproof yet. Creationism just doesn't have enough evidence to be believable to me. But I'm no physicist either, so ........................
 

TheInedibleHulk

Turbo Monkey
May 26, 2004
1,886
0
Colorado
Flew is not even neccesarily denying evolution or the big bang theory, the only idea that the intelligent design argument proposes is that the statistical probablity of the conditions needed for life to exist is so small that it could not have occured without some kind of design. That design my very well include evolution, evolution and ID are completely logically consistent. The Big Bang theory is scientifically possible, but the probability of an event like that creating the conditions for life are unbelievably close to zero. The analogy of a monkey with a typewriter is a common one... if you put a monkey in a room with a type writer, it is possible that the monkey banging on the typewriter will produce a complete shakespeare play. The chances of this happening are much better than the chances of a big bang produces the conditions for life. The way I see it, there are two(or three) possible explanations.

1. Intelligent Design- The Big Bang was not completely random, although it occured through natural processes, an Intelligent designer fine tuned the event in order to produce the conditions neccesary for life.

2. Infinite timeline- If the big bang was not a singular event but one in an infinite series of expanding and collapsing universes, then that probablitity of almost zero increases to a 100 percent chance. If you put the monkey in the room FOREVER, eventually he will produce shakespeare.

3. Infinite space- Similar to the Infinite Timeline theory, if there is infinte space beyond our universe, in which an infinite number of other universes exist, then it is probable that the conditions for life will exist somewhere in the multiverse.

4. Creationism- We all know what this is, but IMHO those that are still holding on to the belief that the earth is 10000 years old and created by Yaweigh might as well be denying that the earth is round. That said, just becasue you are not a fundamental creationist doesnt mean you can't believe in a creator-deity. If God made the laws of nature, why wouldnt he follow them?

To give another analogy, lets talk about full court shots in basketball. The chances of me making a full court shot are probably less than one percent. If I try enough times though, even if it takes ten thousand attempts, eventually I will make it. You wouldnt say that God must have guided that ball, would you? It's just a statistical probability that eventaully I will get lucky and make it no matter how much I suck. However, if I only had one shot and it was for 10 million dollars and I got nothin but net, many people would be inclined to think that God (or fate, or karma, or whatever) might have had something to do with that.
 

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
fluff said:
Then that shows how little you understand of philosophy.
Explain that comment to me. The last 2 times I went to university, Philosophy was in the Arts faculty, not the Sciences faculties. I don't mean to say that philosophers can't comment on natural phenomena or on scientific theories, but I certainly don't regard them as the highest authority on interpretation of scientific findings.