"Why Top Atheist Now Believes in a Creator"

[T'ai Chi]

Very interesting interview with Anthony Flew,

Why Top Atheist Now Believes in a Creator:

http://www.leestrobel.com/newsletters/2006NOVEMBER/LS_TopAtheistBelieves_01Nov06.htm

 

[Cosmo]

From the first paragraph:

the world’s most famous philosophical atheist, Dr. Antony Flew

I call BS. Or, if not BS, at least appeal to/argument from authority.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I didn't realize atheism had a hierarchy.

Or that the beliefs of one person would have any relevance to the beliefs of another, much less be relevant to the actual state of things in reality.

But I guess if reality is like those reality shows where people vote on which contestant gets to win, then it would matter who believed what and how many.

 

[EverLastingGodStopper]

This is really an old story, dating back about 2 years. There was a long-running thread on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board about Antony Flew's beliefs, here. It's my understanding that a few years ago, Flew made some comments that could be interpreted as being open to theism in some way. I'm not really sure, I didn't follow the story then, and I don't care much about it now. Philosophers say stuff. Shrug.

 

[Bob Klase]

Very interesting interview with Anthony Flew

Actually not very interesting at all.

 

[Puggy]

IIRC, Strobel fell for the creationist/ID argument. He's a philosopher not a scientist. I believe he's a Deist now.

 

[jjramsey]

I call BS. Or, if not BS, at least appeal to/argument from authority.

It's for real, though Flew's reasons are dubious:

Flew took great care to emphasize repeatedly to me [Richard Carrier] that:

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.​

He cites, in fact, the improbability arguments of Schroeder, which I have refuted online, and the entire argument to the impossibility of natural biogenesis I have refuted in Biology & Philosophy.

--snip--

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").

From http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Flew is apparently still a Deist, FWIW.

 

[T'ai Chi]

..that sees real design as being inherent?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Or that the beliefs of one person would have any relevance to the beliefs of another,

Um, why wouldn't you think that is true?

Why are any of us here then if beliefs of another couldn't have any impact on others beliefs?

 

[Pyrrho]

Who says Flew is the "top" atheist, and on what grounds?

If Flew is the top atheist, who's the bottom?

 

[a_unique_person]

Who says Flew is the "top" atheist, and on what grounds?

If Flew is the top atheist, who's the bottom?

That would be me.

 

[EverLastingGodStopper]

That would be me.

Hot.

 

[tkingdoll]

Um, why wouldn't you think that is true?

Why are any of us here then if beliefs of another couldn't have any impact on others beliefs?

Weird. He says 'relevance' and you read 'impact'.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Who says Flew is the "top" atheist, and on what grounds?

Strobel wrote it. Probably something do with with Flew being an outspoken atheist for many, many decades (at least 40 years), writing books on it, giving lectures, etc. ya think?

Oh, Richard Carrier has also said "Antony Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century."

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

..that sees real design as being inherent?

Have a look at the links provided by jjramsey. If you can find a sound argument in there for what appears to be Flew's current view, let us know what it is.

That is: offer argument, not stories about Flew.

If you can't...

 

[joobz]

Nothing here seems to be very convincing.

It's really really complex = god did it.

If it was really simple = god didn't do it?

You show someone 2000 years ago how to get glowing phosphorous out of urine, will that be a proof of god to them? It'd be really complex without a basis in chemistry. But now that we know it is possible and quite logical doesn't make it any less amazing but it is still completely logical without the need for a higher power.

 

[Level]

Um, why wouldn't you think that is true?

Why are any of us here then if beliefs of another couldn't have any impact on others beliefs?

Since the majority of us are skeptics, I would think no one would be swayed be another's belief. I'd be swayed by the evidence and logic instead. In other words, we'd like a logical explanation or some sort.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Sure, but arguments and evidence are still going to be filtered through people, whether it is through you or through other people.

 

[CapelDodger]

I didn't realize atheism had a hierarchy.

Yup. And I'm at the top. You and your ilk were hardly competition - you weren't even aware there was a competition on. Complain all you like, squirm and kick and squeal, the hierarchy won't be bothered. Too late for that. It was almost too easy to be fun.

Or that the beliefs of one person would have any relevance to the beliefs of another, much less be relevant to the actual state of things in reality.

Well, duh. No wonder you're at Grade 7 and finding it a struggle. (I have files and metrics, so don't even try to argue.)

But I guess if reality is like those reality shows where people vote on which contestant gets to win, then it would matter who believed what and how many.

And reality isn't like that. Reality is me telling you to know your place, telling you what it is, and sending people around to make you keep to it.

 

[Dunstan]

Who says Flew is the "top" atheist, and on what grounds?

"And how'd he get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By hanging onto outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the social and economic differences in our society! If there's ever going to be any progress....."