Well Known Philosopher Develops Debilitating Dementia

[Marius]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — 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.

[3278]

Y'know, fellow brit Richard Dawkins wrote an /entire book/ on why the Argument for Intelligent Design based on DNA is fallacious. A whole book! I'm going to send it to Flew with strict instructions on exactly where to put it.

I have no concept of how any educated and intelligent human can possibly accept the Argument for Intelligent Design based on biology. There are other reasons for belief - faith, for instance - which are not so readily disposed of, but the biological complexity argument is outright and simply absurd.

[lorg]

His 81 so perhaps the fear of the reaper is making him hedge his bets.

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

Does that necessarily mean God? Couldn't it just as well be your average-rectal-probing-smarter-then-us-aliens? Bit drastic to start proclaiming the existance of God based on this.

[WillyGilligan]

Does that necessarily mean God? Couldn't it just as well be your average-rectal-probing-smarter-then-us-aliens? Bit drastic to start proclaiming the existance of God based on this.

Alien-creation is recursive. If the only explanation for life's complexity is outside influence, and that influence is a more complex lifeform, who made them? At least with God, it's a divine being powerful enough to potentially have created itself.

[MissTeja]

Dude. Keep reading...

"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."

I say, good for him. Religion is a healing tool. And as I've always said, while I think the religious are misguided, the athiests are just as ignorant. Sometimes their sureness of their supposed knowledge makes me giggle even more than the religious nuts. But the truely religious surely, in general at least, have less problem going to sleep at night, being happy and productive, and having abundant self-esteem in the world. It sounds to me like the dude finally just realized the lonliness and desperation, not always, but often associated with the other side, were just simply unnecessary. If religion is the opiate of the masses, sounds like he just started longing to get high. Can't say I blame him. (Oh, and I am an agnostic, fyi, if anyone wondered.) S'good to hear that he found his truth and the confidence to say so. I respect him for that.

[3278]

Religion is a healing tool.

At least as often, it's a hurting tool. I would not find it unlikely if, considering the entire course of human existance, religion has done more harm than good. [The only argument I could summon for the counterpoint is that civilization itself may well have been impossible, if not merely delayed, without religion.]

And as I've always said, while I think the religious are misguided, the athiests are just as ignorant. Sometimes their sureness of their supposed knowledge makes me giggle even more than the religious nuts.

It doesn't have to be. Informed atheism has much more factual and conceptual evidence on its side than even the most informed theism. Now, if you're arguing the usefulness of logic and reason, there is certainly a valid issue there, but it applies equally to theism and atheism, so I fail to see how that would support the notion that atheists are as ignorant as theists.

Certainly, there /are/ ignorant atheists, but even on a statistical level, I doubt they are as common as ignorant theists. Could be my innate bias toward atheism showing there, though.

But the truely religious surely, in general at least, have less problem going to sleep at night, being happy and productive, and having abundant self-esteem in the world.

That is the fault of the atheists, and not atheism. There are perfectly sound and reasonable ways to feel fulfilled and pleased when not ascribing the creation of the universe to someone else. For instance, I've always felt /more/ proud as an atheist, because it means my accomplishments are /mine,/ and not those of some devine being. If atheists in general feel less secure, it's because they're being ignorant and foolish, and they should come talk to me.

[MissTeja]

Well, when I spoke of healing, I did so on a personal level, not regarding civilization. Religion, more often than not, I truly believe, is much more of a healing tool than a hurting tool for individuals who engage in it's practice, generally speaking. Of course there are some of the world's largest atrocities that have spawned from certain religious backing, but it's also been well known for bringing peace, security, calmness, hope, joy, excitement, and ambition to people on their own level.

I'm not trying to defend religion. If I thought so much of it, I'd be a church-going person myself. What I speak of is not set in stone or out of one of many textbooks, but just off of my personal experiences having been raised in a very religious household as a child, it's effects on me through adolescense, and how I see things now as an adult.

I use the term ignorant because of that very "factual" and "conceptual" basis of evidence for atheism. Just because you cannot see something does not mean it's not there. The world of science is constantly discovering the truth of this statement more and more every day, and as educated people, it really just makes me giggle when so many are so quick to turn down the possiblility of a God, multiple Gods, or an afterlife on the premise that logic doesn't support such a notion.

I guess pride of religion or lack thereof can stem through both areas, and maybe it is more of a personal discretion of how they allow those said beliefs to impact their daily lives, but in my years of education, it seems as though pessimism stems higher to those groups lacking faith in some form of Almighty presence, due often to those practices such as testimony or a shared belief in something, that many a time have very beneficial psychological impacts on people at the individual level.

I'm not saying who is right or who is wrong. If I knew, I'd be there. I just go nuts each time I hear anyone criticize others for having religious-related beliefs that differ from their own, when without having an unquestionable solution to the issue of religion, no one will ever really know what is right and true. No one. Religious propogranda is just saturated with hypocricy throughout history and especially, it seems, in these modern times. Yet, as I commend you for being able to speak your belief, I also commend that man for being able to speak his - especially despite such public adverse affects of doing so.

They say the best trait to a good leader is admitting when they are wrong. He realized, in his own heart, that his previous beliefs were wrong according to what information he had, and he stood up and said so. He should be commended as a good example for us all. Now, if only we could get Dubya to follow suit.

[AtemHutlrt]

I applaud Flew for seriously reconsidering a long-held belief, especially considering this belief helped him gain fame, professional regard and exalted status in a small community. I also applaud the fortitude required to leave a community that's so unkind to its expatriates. When a Christian leaves the flock, everyone becomes genuinely concerned about her wellbeing, but when an atheist defects, everyone calls him an idiot. It seems like a lot of atheists support the same kind of intellectual conformity they're always railing against.

[3278]

Well, when I spoke of healing, I did so on a personal level, not regarding civilization. Religion, more often than not, I truly believe, is much more of a healing tool than a hurting tool for individuals who engage in it's practice, generally speaking. Of course there are some of the world's largest atrocities that have spawned from certain religious backing, but it's also been well known for bringing peace, security, calmness, hope, joy, excitement, and ambition to people on their own level.

I guess it all depends on what you think is important. I think peace, security, calmness, hope, joy, excitement, and ambition are swell things, but I also think it's important to be educated, logical, reasonable, fair, correct, and so on. Religion does not, as a rule, provide for logic, but rather moralistic emotional responses to the world at large. Religion does not teach science, but a twisted parody of science, in which beliefs counter to perception are held to be true, but beliefs in accord with perception are disregarded.

My point is, in short, that one can find peace and joy in a lack of religion, whereas religion cannot bring about those things which I value most.

I use the term ignorant because of that very "factual" and "conceptual" basis of evidence for atheism. Just because you cannot see something does not mean it's not there. The world of science is constantly discovering the truth of this statement more and more every day, and as educated people, it really just makes me giggle when so many are so quick to turn down the possiblility of a God, multiple Gods, or an afterlife on the premise that logic doesn't support such a notion.

That's the wonder of science, though: that it /does/ discover additional truths, and correct itself when it's incorrect. You condemn atheism and science on grounds which much more apply to religion!

Scientific persons do not, as a rule, claim that there is no god; they do, however, in accordance with every piece of human perception, claim that there is currently no compelling evidence of one. It's all well and good to say that things which we can't see are there, but science accepts that, and searches for alternate means of perception. Despite thousands of years of empirical searching, no one has ever found a single piece of evidence that any sort of divinity is anything other than human imagination.

Atheism isn't more ignorant than theism; atheism is, in fact, the only one of the two founded in any lack of ignorance at all.

They say the best trait to a good leader is admitting when they are wrong.

I disagree. I think the best trait in a good leader is <i>being right</i>.

[3278]

I applaud Flew for seriously reconsidering a long-held belief, especially considering this belief helped him gain fame, professional regard and exalted status in a small community.

I respect someone who is able to modify or contradict a long-held belief of theirs. If he'd woken up one day and said, "I spoke to god in my sleep, and now I believe," I could accept that, and respect it [although I'd think he had a dream in accord with reason]. I do not have a great deal of respect for someone who contradicts a long-held belief on truly, spectacularly, cosmically erroneous grounds. The Argument from Intelligent Design is outmoded by 150 years, and has no basis whatsoever in fact, logic, or reason; its only foundation is in wonder and ignorance, and there is wonder aplenty in the true explanation for complexity.

[MissTeja]

I find your opinions on the subject very interesting, as always. I do still hold firm to everything I said in my previous posts, though, so I find no need to reiterate.

[Nigga JP]

Atheism isn't more ignorant than theism; atheism is, in fact, the only one of the two founded in any lack of ignorance at all.

It is pretty ignorant to believe that we are to the point where science can prove or disprove anything about God. With so much about the universe, earth and life it's self that science still cannot explain it seems pretty pretentious to use science as the basis for theism or atheism. Our current knowlege only seems like a basis for agnosticism.

People will argue this point forever. Scientists that believe in a higher power will use science to support that arguement. Read David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists (then laugh) then read some atheist reviews of this work. Foster attacks Darwinism on scientific grounds and makes some decent points, but the basis for his book and the basis of his caculations are flawed. Even though he is attacking Darwin and others on their facts and calculations he made the very same mistakes himself. I'm agnositic so I believe that we can't find evidence in either direction and I will argue that until the damn sun comes up night. Scientists do the same thing for theism and atheism. Whatever they believe they will attempt to prove with science, but it is obvious that I believe that these efforts are in vain.

Despite thousands of years of empirical searching, no one has ever found a single piece of evidence that any sort of divinity is anything other than human imagination.

And desipite thousands of years of empirical searching, no one has ever found a single piece of evidence that divinity is just human imagination.

[LittleTim]

Despite thousands of years of empirical searching, no one has ever found a single piece of evidence that any sort of divinity is anything other than human imagination.

And despite thousands of years of empirical searching, no one has ever found a single piece of evidence that divinity is just human imagination.

And despite thousands of years of empirical searching, no one has ever found a single piece of evidence that unicorns are more then just human imagination.

I think that it is silly to think there might really be unicorns in the world. Do you think they might be just over the next hill, just out of sight? Or could they be dancing on cloud tops high over head. I want more then unexplainable feelings and myths from thousands of years ago. I've seen no real signs of unicorns, so I don't think they exist, and I don't waste my time thinking about the question, "what if they do exist?".

I've seen no real signs of god, so I don't think it exists, and I dont want to waste my time thinking about the question, "what if it does exist?".

[3278]

It is pretty ignorant to believe that we are to the point where science can prove or disprove anything about God. With so much about the universe, earth and life it's self that science still cannot explain it seems pretty pretentious to use science as the basis for theism or atheism. Our current knowlege only seems like a basis for agnosticism.

Agnoticism is a perfectly logical point of view, as well. The only difference between this sort of agnosticism [soft agosticism, which says, "I don't know"] and my form of atheism [soft atheism, or "I doubt it"] is tendency; both acknowledge that the nature of the gods is likely unknowable: atheism simply goes a step further and states that, without any evidence to the contrary, it is illogical to believe in something for which there is no basis.

Let's take a step back from true religion for a moment, and focus on a different form of mysticism: pyrokinesis. Mankind has believed in powerful magics for aeons, and yet no one's ever documented a case where a person can start a fire with his or her mind, despite some serious searching. Is it possible that pyrokinesis exists, but that the practitioners are hiding, or located in some remote spot? Certainly. But without any evidence to support the notion, and given the extreme unlikelihod of the conditions required - brain cells remotely and directly effecting overall molecular energy - it is much more likely that it simply is not real. Now, I could say, "I don't know," but the lack of evidence is pretty overwhelming. Certainly, it could be proved tomorrow, but I think it's important to acknowledge the logic of today, and say, "I doubt it."

I feel the same way about religion. In the absense of proof, when proof should be everywhere, I prefer to take the most likely stance, instead of taking no stance at all. Nothing is proveable; the sun could be a mass hallucination. But I choose to believe the sun is real, because all the faculties of all our senses say that is the most likely explanation for the big round ball we see in the sky.

And desipite thousands of years of empirical searching, no one has ever found a single piece of evidence that divinity is just human imagination.

They never will. It's proof of a negative. If I tell you there's an undetectable cat in my chair, you'll say, "There's no cat there," and I'll say, "That's exactly how it /would/ look if the cat were undetectable!"

[Nigga JP]

And desipite thousands of years of empirical searching, no one has ever found a single piece of evidence that divinity is just human imagination.

They never will. It's proof of a negative. If I tell you there's an undetectable cat in my chair, you'll say, "There's no cat there," and I'll say, "That's exactly how it /would/ look if the cat were undetectable!"

You made me spit Mountain Dew all over my brand new keyboard, you bastard.

[3278]

Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week, folks. Religious metaphors a specialty.

[Serious Paul]

I am so behind.

[Serious Paul]

First off let me state this an intresting conversation.

I do not believe in the christian god, or any other. I don't expect everyone to believe like I do, however I am certainly puzzled at this thing called faith. I just can't take that leap myself.

I am also just not intrested in believing. I just don't care if there is a god, allah, or whatever. It wouldn't matter much to me if there were.

People will argue this point forever.

I agree with this.