Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

S O F I

Administrator
Staff member
#1
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."

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.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

A bit of an old article, but interesting, I'd say. I'll post my thoughts tomorrow, I am brain dead.
 

Chronic

Well-Known Member
#3
Well first ..

"Has Science Discovered God?"

If this is the proof that God exists "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature" then the answer to that question is a big no. Science doesn't prove things by just thinking of an answer without having evidence to back it up. "Has philosophy discovered God?" would be a more sensible question.

I was expecting an interesting argument as to why he suddenly believes in a creator but I'm pretty disappointed.

It took him 81 years to conclude a creator exists because of "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" ?
This article should be titled "Famous narcist pulls head out of his ass". Sounds to me like he was so sure of himself that he wouldn't allow himself to even think of other possibilities.

"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."

And he was right there. There is nothing that PROVES God exists. Even if they found evidence that showed there was a creator that doesn't prove God exists, that would just prove a creator exists.
There is also nothing that proves God doesn't exist for that matter. It all comes down to faith. There is no certainty. People who say they know God exists/doesn't exist don't understand the meaning of certainty.
If atheists and religious people just accepted that there would be a whole lot less bitching and a whole lot less trouble in the world.
 
#4
From infidels:

Antony Flew has retracted one of his recent assertions. In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:

"I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."

He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins because Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter," even though this is false (e.g., Richard Dawkins and L. D. Hurst, "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," Nature 357: pp. 198-199, 21 May 1992) and hardly relevant: it was Flew's responsibility to check the state of the field (there are several books by actual protobiologists published in just the last five years), rather than wait for the chance possibility that one particular evolutionist would write on the subject. Now that he has done what he was supposed to do in the first place, he has retracted his false statement about the current state of protobiological science.

Flew also makes another admission: "I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics." Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims). As Flew admitted to me, and to Stuart Wavell of the London Times, and Duncan Crary of the Humanist Network News, he has not made any effort to check up on the current state of things in any relevant field (see "No Longer Atheist, Flew Stands by 'Presumption of Atheism'" and "In the Beginning There Was Something"). Flew has thus abandoned the very standards of inquiry that led the rest of us to atheism. It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible scholarship.

Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell. But in response to theists citing him in their favor, Flew strangely calls his "recent very modest defection from my previous unbelief" a "more radical form of unbelief," and implies that the concept of God might actually be self-refuting, for "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit," but, Flew says, "I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super radical controversy about the conceivability of the putative concept of God as a spirit." This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.
 

FroDawgg

Well-Known Member
#5
Chronic said:
And he was right there. There is nothing that PROVES God exists. Even if they found evidence that showed there was a creator that doesn't prove God exists, that would just prove a creator exists.
There is also nothing that proves God doesn't exist for that matter. It all comes down to faith. There is no certainty. People who say they know God exists/doesn't exist don't understand the meaning of certainty.
If atheists and religious people just accepted that there would be a whole lot less bitching and a whole lot less trouble in the world.
true that. i personally believe in God, but for some people the proof isn't there, and i'm not going to tell anyone what to believe. people should just let others be and let them believe what they will, and, like you said, the world would be a safer and better place.

and on somewhat of a sidenote, last night on the simpsons, bart said something that i have believed all along about protestants vs. catholics: "it's all Christianity. all the little stupid differences overshadow the big stupid similarities (haha)" or something like that. i believe all denominations are basically the same, and as far as different religions go, we all believe in the same God, and have the same basic principles: peace and love.
 
#8
Bina said:
I reckon he changed his mind (at 81) coz he's closer to death!! hehe
That was my first thought :D

He doesn't believe in an afterlife though, so it's not much use to him.

FroDawgg said:
i believe all denominations are basically the same, and as far as different religions go, we all believe in the same God, and have the same basic principles: peace and love.
Muslims, Jews and Christians might, but not all religions worship the same God. Or if they do, it's a God with MPD.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#9
Bah, he didn't really "belief". I myself have never totally excluded the possibility of a deity (you could call me more agnostic than atheistic). He does more or less the same.

Disappointing read. Chronic pretty much summed up my stance on it. (that's nice, Chronic, you ought to do that more, saves me time :) )
 

Sebastian

Well-Known Member
#10
Chronic said:
I was expecting an interesting argument as to why he suddenly believes in a creator but I'm pretty disappointed.

It took him 81 years to conclude a creator exists because of "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" ?
This article should be titled "Famous narcist pulls head out of his ass". Sounds to me like he was so sure of himself that he wouldn't allow himself to even think of other possibilities.
was thinking the same
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top