:whistle

 

Science nudges atheist toward God

 

By Richard N. Ostling

The Associated Press

 

 

NEW YORK ? A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than five decades has changed his mind. He now believes in God ? more or less ? based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released yesterday.

 

Antony Flew, 81, 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 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."

 

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

 

He argued early in his career that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were correct to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything.

 

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.

 

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.

 

He has 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 in 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.

 

Flew this week 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."

I think more the other way, Science has brought way more athiest than in the past, its well known

Science has nothing to do with atheism. It can't move toward or from atheism anymore than it can move to or from a ham sandwich. Just because he punked out isn't going to make atheists all over the world suddenly become god-fearing folk anymore than Chrisitians will give up their faith when a preist declares that he doesn't believe in god.

Science has nothing to do with atheism. It can't move toward or from atheism anymore than it can move to or from a ham sandwich. Just because he punked out isn't going to make atheists all over the world suddenly become god-fearing folk anymore than Chrisitians will give up their faith when a preist declares that he doesn't believe in god.

643377[/snapback]

Science has largely been atheist in the recent century. I think it may become more deist, at least recognizing God created the universe.

Science has largely been atheist in the recent century.? I think it may become more deist, at least recognizing God created the universe.

 

 

How is science going to become deist, when it can't prove the existence of god? Science can't become deist anymore than it can become Smurfist.

True scientists must find it difficult to remain intellectually honest and athiest at the same time. No evidence to make a good decision either way. Agnostic is the way to go.

True scientists must find it difficult to remain intellectually honest and athiest at the same time. No evidence to make a good decision either way. Agnostic is the way to go.

665802[/snapback]

God bless agnostics.

Interesting analogy.

 

Not sure I would categorize your stance on Iraq WMDs as "agnostic", but if you say so then I'll accept that.

 

As an agnostic I am skeptical regarding the existence of god, and generally skeptical of such claims.

 

I can't recall much if any skepticism from you regarding the Bush administration's claims on Iraq WMDs. (Without crawling through years of posts, so perhaps I'm wrong.)

 

Because I certainly can't disprove god exists, at least not in our lifetime.

In the same vein, I also think it's rather difficult to disprove that country X has some nasty weapons somewhere. On the other hand it's rather easy to claim that they do.

Because I certainly can't disprove god exists, at least not in our lifetime.?

In the same vein, I also think it's rather difficult to disprove that country X has some nasty weapons somewhere.? On the other hand it's rather easy to claim that they do.

668216[/snapback]

The key being, you would never see an agnostic defend the actions of a God believer under the auspices that you cant prove God isnt there to back him up. For example, a person who kills because he says God told him to will not be defended by an agnostic under the argument that "you cant prove God didnt tell him that." Its certainly an issue of burden of proof.

Right f_m, that's what I was getting at.

 

At the same time I won't deny that the possibility exists either. (regarding God or WMDs) The search for truth is a good thing. The searching isn't what I have a problem with...

I wonder why people are so willing to be agnostic about a god (who has been searched for by millions for millenia), yet be so damn certain about no WMD being in Iraq?

 

I've been villified and badgered unmercifully over this, yet my position on WMD is one of an agnostic because of lack of definitive proof either way. At least in Iraq, a sarin shell WAS found - what physical evidence exists that there is a god? More people searched for many more years than ever searched for WMD in Iraq.

 

To go by the logic of my attackers, GOD DOES NOT EXIST - because no proof has been surfaced in the last 2 years. QED.

 

Spin this however you like - but IMO its a blatant double standard being applied for purely political, intellectually bankrupt, motives

666301[/snapback]

If this is really what you believe than it must truly be tough for you to believe/have faith/espouse anything. However, I think you raise an interesting point.

Part of having faith in God is not having to have obvious proof to believe in him(or her).

Part of having faith in God is not having to have obvious proof to believe in him(or her).

669051[/snapback]

Then why were you given reason?

If this is really what you believe than it must truly be tough for you to believe/have faith/espouse anything.? However, I think you raise an interesting point.

 

I have no faith in anything that I haven't verified. If something is not known with absolute certainty, then the best you can do is assign it some probability of being true or known.

 

Even when you do verify something that appears to work or be true, doesn't mean its stays true or working - ex. just because the brakes on your car worked yesterday doesn't mean they will work tomorrow.

 

Everything in the material world is in a constant state of flux.

 

Engineers question everything.

669045[/snapback]

OK. Then what is the probability that 1. Sadaam intended to do us or our ally (Israel) harm and 2. did he have the capability to do so? What method did you use to come up with your probability? If it's 5% or less do you give it the same credence as if it were 95% likely?

Part of having faith in God is not having to have obvious proof to believe in him(or her).

669051[/snapback]

Then why were you given reason?

669103[/snapback]

I was once an atheist but I just somehow found my faith in God again, its not really something I can explain.

Part of having faith in God is not having to have obvious proof to believe in him(or her).

669051[/snapback]

Then why were you given reason?

669103[/snapback]

I was once an atheist but I just somehow found my faith in God again, its not really something I can explain.

669109[/snapback]

That's fine. Now, as long as you are tolerant of all god's people, be the best person you can, and help as many as you can, your doing OK in my book. Don't let your religion become some sort of naughty or nice game. Use it for positive things.

 

/end lecture

 

Part of having faith in God is not having to have obvious proof to believe in him(or her).

669051[/snapback]

Then why were you given reason?

669103[/snapback]

I was once an atheist but I just somehow found my faith in God again, its not really something I can explain.

669109[/snapback]

That's fine. Now, as long as you are tolerant of all god's people, be the best person you can, and help as many as you can, your doing OK in my book. Don't let your religion become some sort of naughty or nice game. Use it for positive things.

 

/end lecture

 

669117[/snapback]

Meh, I don't being a Catholic. I would rather join a less ridiculous demonation of Christianity.

 

I really respect anyone with a strong belief in God, and I'm fine with those who don't enitirely believe in God but are still good people. I really can't stand close-minded atheists though. :thumbdown

Part of having faith in God is not having to have obvious proof to believe in him(or her).

669051[/snapback]

Then why were you given reason?

669103[/snapback]

I was once an atheist but I just somehow found my faith in God again, its not really something I can explain.

669109[/snapback]

That's fine. Now, as long as you are tolerant of all god's people, be the best person you can, and help as many as you can, your doing OK in my book. Don't let your religion become some sort of naughty or nice game. Use it for positive things.

 

/end lecture

 

669117[/snapback]

Meh, I don't being a Catholic. I would rather join a less ridiculous demonation of Christianity.

 

I really respect anyone with a strong belief in God, and I'm fine with those who don't enitirely believe in God but are still good people. I really can't stand close-minded atheists though. :thumbdown

669122[/snapback]

What about close-minded fundamentalists? Whether they be Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, Methodists, Unitarians? I'm in full agreement (although, sometimes I violate this principle, but I'm working on it all the time) and I believe the farther we move away from narrow-mindedness the closer we come to the best of possible worlds.

A great quote to sum up my position:

 

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

 

one of my favorite people.

What about close-minded fundamentalists? Whether they be Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, Methodists, Unitarians? I'm in full agreement (although, sometimes I violate this principle, but I'm working on it all the time) and I believe the farther we move away from narrow-mindedness the closer we come to the best of possible worlds.

669129[/snapback]

I don't like anyone narrow-minded, especially the Mel-Gibson's who says his wife is going to Hell because she isn't Catholic. But there are some annoying atheists who think anyone is an idiot for beleiving in God. Tolerance is the key, and what goes on in Europe is far from tolerance.

What about close-minded fundamentalists?? Whether they be Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, Methodists, Unitarians?? I'm in full agreement (although, sometimes I violate this principle, but I'm working on it all the time) and I believe the farther we move away from narrow-mindedness the closer we come to the best of possible worlds.

669129[/snapback]

I don't like anyone narrow-minded, especially the Mel-Gibson's who says his wife is going to Hell because she isn't Catholic. But there are some annoying atheists who think anyone is an idiot for beleiving in God. Tolerance is the key, and what goes on in Europe is far from tolerance.

669234[/snapback]

I think it's important to realize that god-fearing people in the States' are no different. Seems to me you think it's only the Catholics and atheist Europeans.

A great quote to sum up my position:

 

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

 

one of my favorite people.

669147[/snapback]

 

Why are you apparently cocksure there's no more WMD in Iraq (or similarly, Iraqi WMD that were spirited away somewhere else before the war)?

 

I'm betting on the INFINITE number of probabilities that lay somewhere between 0.0 and 1.0

 

Betting on singularities like 0.0 doesn't seem very "doubtful" to me, when an infinity of alternatives are there :plain It rather sounds like a level of faith not unlike that of true religious believers.

669320[/snapback]

I'm not 100% sure and if I said that before I was wrong.

Right f_m, that's what I was getting at.

 

At the same time I won't deny that the possibility exists either. (regarding God or WMDs) The search for truth is a good thing. The searching isn't what I have a problem with...

668254[/snapback]

 

Indeed, its the searching that you can commend someone for, its making the claim without first experiencing the trials of the search that is questionable. I also find it hard to agree with someone that says that God did this for me in regards to changes in their life, abilities or situation. While I do believe in God, I do give myself at least some credit in improving my situation, there is much to be said of ambition and confidence with humility.

 

You also can't expect an atheist to be moved by the words of an evangelist, as a declared atheist isn't necessarily searching at that point in life. An evangelist's strength is to stir the interest of nonbelievers who are searching.

 

I have been thru the process, studied various religions in an effort to find some essence of truth, and for many years I was a Taoist, not so much a religion, but a philosophy of life. I naturally accepted God in my own time, under my own freewill, because of my searching, I am much more appreciative of my faith than if I would have been had it been crammed down my throat since childhood.