Just finished Antony Flews, "There is a God"

[endlessabyss]

If you don't know who Antony Flew is, he was a popular atheistic philosopher for six decades, and after reviewing all the evidence, he changed his worldview from atheism to Theism.

 

 

Brief synopsis:

 

 

Flew grew up in a very religious household as an adolescence, his father being a minister for the Church of England. Flew himself felt disengaged when it came to religion, and didn't appreciate the rituals that his fellow Christians participated in. Around fifteen years old he left the faith, and it wasn't because of reviewing the evidence on the existence of God, it was based on the good ol' argument from evil. He couldn't see how a loving God could let the Jews go through so much suffering. Well all he would of had to do is read the bible to figure that one out, but that is for a later discussion.

 

 

The wonderful thing about Flew was he was truly open to following the evidence where it leads, like my good friend, Socrates. Flew changed his mind on other positions he had held dearly, a few being: communist to capitalist, determinist to free-will, and lastly atheist to Theist.

 

 

His views on God began to change when Physicist Gerald Schroeder demonstrated to Flew that the DNA molecule could never had come about by time and chance alone. The cascade followed soon after.

 

 

His three lines of evidence for recognizing the Almighty are:

 

 

• Nature obeys laws
  
• Organized, complex, and purpose driven beings arose from matter
  
• the very existence of nature itself
  

Other arguments that won Flew over are the argument for fine-tuning, and Richard Swinburne's version of the cosmological argument.

 

 

 

He has a strong list of scientists who also recognized the Almighty, that influenced his change of mind, including Einstein, Planck, Newton, and Maxwell just to name a few; he also references Paul Davies work, which is also in support of God. Flew also asserts that the greatest scientists to walk this green earth all were Theists, and that science and religion are inseparable.

 

 

The last thing that I'll throw in is that Flew threw in some interesting quotes, one by Stephen Hawking and Darwin, in reference to God, and he was highly critical of Richard Dawkins work, quoting Physicist John Barrow calling out Dawkins on not being a scientist, but a biologist, or better yet, a natural historian/philosopher.

 

 

To conclude, we have a person here who was an atheist for six decades, and low and behold, after reviewing the evidence comes to the inference that God exists. Flew did not convert to any organized religion, but had a high opinion for Christianity, and said if he had more time to review the evidence further, Christianity would definitely be an option. Flew believed in the god of Aristotle, who possesses all the attributes of the Christian God, besides being personal.

 

 

I shall end this with a quote:

 

 

"In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason, and not of faith."

 

 

-Antony Flew

Edited February 23, 2015 by endlessabyss

[OpenBook]

He has a strong list of scientists who also recognized the Almighty, that influenced his change of mind, including Einstein, Planck, Newton, and Maxwell just to name a few; he also references Paul Davies work, which is also in support of God. Flew also asserts that the greatest scientists to walk this green earth all were Theists, and that science and religion are inseparable.

 

I like him already!

[TaxAHCruel]

If you don't know who Antony Flew is, he was a popular atheistic philosopher for six decades, and after reviewing all the evidence, he changed his worldview from atheism to Theism.

 

From what I heard the book was mostly ghost written - and his change of mind was less related to a review of the evidence - so much as to him getting quite old and going into something of a dotage.

 

All of that said however - if you want to lay out what evidence "he" found to convince him - I am happy to consider it.

 

His views on God began to change when Physicist Gerald Schroeder demonstrated to Flew that the DNA molecule could never had come about by time and chance alone. The cascade followed soon after.

 

What evidence did Gerald offer that established this claim?

 

Nature obeys laws

 

Not so much. Rather what we call "laws" is just a verbal description of what we observe nature doing.

 

Organized, complex, and purpose driven beings arose from matter

 

And so what? That is not evidence for anything. That is just what happened. How is this evidence for a god specifically? And the phrase "purpose driven" is a little wishy-washy too. Can we clarify exactly what is meant by that?

 

the very existence of nature itself

 

That is called begging the question. That is not evidence for anything. That is the question. This would be like saying the evidence that the accused did the murder - is that there WAS a murder. That is worse than circular argumentation.

 

argument for fine-tuning

 

Has it been evidenced that any such thing exists?

 

He has a strong list of scientists who also recognized the Almighty

 

Irrelevant. That is a combination of Argument from Authority and Argumentum ad populum.

 

Flew also asserts that the greatest scientists to walk this green earth all were Theists

 

Irrelevant entirely, even if it was true. More AfA mixed with AaP as above.

 

and that science and religion are inseparable.

 

Basis for this statement was what?

 

calling out Dawkins on not being a scientist, but a biologist

 

Erm - biologists are scientists. He seems to have trouble with basic terminology then?

 

To conclude, we have a person here who was an atheist for six decades

 

Also highly irrelevant.

 

low and behold, after reviewing the evidence comes to the inference that God exists.

 

What evidence was this then? None of it appears to have made its way into your post.

[umirano]

Ah, scientists who're theists are trustworthy scientists. The others not so much, esp. with all their "theories" and stuff... I see.

 

Btw, Einstein was very much not a theist:

 

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

Einstein in a letter to Joseph Dispentiere on March 24, 1954 in response to deceptive news articles about Einstein's religious views.

 

OP, like so many other believers you're misrepresenting A. Einstein's actual worldview when calling him a believer.

 

It's well worth reading the rest of this Wikipedia article or any half decent Einstein biography.

 

A while back there was a thread about things that believers say in discussions with atheists and which annoy atheists. Misrepresenting views of atheists should be on the very top of such a list.

 

And Einstein stating he's not a believer in a personal - or any god, for that matter - doesn't strengthen the atheist argument.

 

The argumentum ad auctoritatem is a pretty cheap shot regardless of which side brings it up. But it's obviously financially viable for authors of less than half decent philosophical literature.

Edited February 23, 2015 by umirano

[endlessabyss]

Ah, scientists who're theists are trustworthy scientists. The others not so much, esp. with all their "theories" and stuff... I see.

 

Btw, Einstein was very much not a theist:

 

 

 

Einstein in a letter to Joseph Dispentiere on March 24, 1954 in response to deceptive news articles about Einstein's religious views.

 

OP, like so many other believers you're misrepresenting A. Einstein's actual worldview when calling him a believer.

 

It's well worth reading the rest of this Wikipedia article or any half decent Einstein biography.

 

A while back there was a thread about things that believers say in discussions with atheists and which annoy atheists. Misrepresenting views of atheists should be on the very top of such a list.

 

And Einstein stating he's not a believer in a personal - or any god, for that matter - doesn't strengthen the atheist argument.

 

The argumentum ad auctoritatem is a pretty cheap shot regardless of which side brings it up. But it's obviously financially viable for authors of less than half decent philosophical literature.

 

No, you are. I will respond to all this non-sense when I get off work.

[Clair93]

It's not like Flew presented any argument or evidence that didn't exist before his conversion. This is just another person changing their mind, as it happens all the time.

 

What I didn't like about Flew was that he started propagating the story that Darwin had a deathbed change of heart about evolution and converted to Christianity. That is a lie and refuted by the Darwin family. Even the young earth creationist Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis says the story was fake, Antony Flew didn't either bother fact checking, or propagated a lie on purpose, neither of which are signs of a good philosopher.

[endlessabyss]

Alright, I'm back to address some points.

 

 

To the first person who commented on my thread. He says he HEARD that Flews conversion had something to do with his old age, and his book was ghost written. Typical atheist non-sense and lies.

 

 

A quote from the book:

 

 

At the beset I should make one thing clear. When reports of my mind change spread by the media and the ubiquitous internet, some commentators were quick to claim that my advanced age had something to do with my "conversion". It has been said that fear concentrates the mind powerfully, and these critics had concluded that expectations of an impending entrance into the afterlife triggered a deathbed conversion. Clearly these people were not familiar with neither my writings on the non-existence of an afterlife nor with my current views on the topic. For over fifty years I have not simply denied the existence of God, but the existence of an afterlife. My Gifford lectures published as The Logic of Mortality represents the culmination of this process of thought. This is one area in which I haven't changed my mind

 

 

Flew didn't believe in the after life, so there goes what you HEARD.

 

 

Second, the laws of nature:

 

 

Physicist Paul Davies:

"It is arrant non-sense to suppose that the laws of nature are our laws and not natures."

 

 

"The laws of physics really do exist, and the scientists job is to uncover them, not invent them."

 

 

Davies also dismisses the idea that the order of the universe is imposed by our minds.

 

 

The rest of the second posters post is not really worth going over, so I won't elaborate much more on his other squabbles.

 

 

Now, atheist love to claim Einstein for some reason. I have no reason why, but he was a theist in the same way Flew was. They both didn't believe in an after life.

 

 

Quotes by Einstein:

 

 

Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with out modest powers must feel humble

 

 

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of an infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details that we are able to see with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God

 

 

What really makes me angry is they (people who say there is no God) quote me for support of their views

 

 

Flew did a magnificent job pointing out how Richard Dawkins, in his crummy book, "The God Delusion", completely misrepresented Einstein as being an atheist, when he wasn't.

 

 

I could go on and on, but I don't feel like re-writing the guys book. It is so apparent God exists, and essentially all the great minds who have walked this planet agreed. Yes, some had different ideas of the attributes of God, but they all agree of a Superior Intelligence that created this existence.

 

 

I, myself, go with what Jesus said, because He was the greatest individual to walk this planet.

[endlessabyss]

It's not like Flew presented any argument or evidence that didn't exist before his conversion. This is just another person changing their mind, as it happens all the time.

 

What I didn't like about Flew was that he started propagating the story that Darwin had a deathbed change of heart about evolution and converted to Christianity. That is a lie and refuted by the Darwin family. Even the young earth creationist Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis says the story was fake, Antony Flew didn't either bother fact checking, or propagated a lie on purpose, neither of which are signs of a good philosopher.

 

 

Source?

 

 

You seem mad.

[Clair93]

Source?

 

 

You seem mad.

 

Can't help it when people are disingenuous.

 

Source for what? Flew's claims about Darwin's conversion or refutation of that? In either case, it's pretty well-known and well-documented and a simple Google search would give you the answer. If you couldn't pull that off, let me know and I'll do it for you

[Clair93]

I could go on and on, but I don't feel like re-writing the guys book. It is so apparent God exists, and essentially all the great minds who have walked this planet agreed. Yes, some had different ideas of the attributes of God, but they all agree of a Superior Intelligence that created this existence.

 

 

I, myself, go with what Jesus said, because He was the greatest individual to walk this planet.

 

ALL the greatest minds agreed? Don't you think you're pushing it a little too far?

 

You do realize that 93% of the members of the national academy of sciences do not believe in any sort of God ?! That goes up to 97% in the royal society (UK's equivalent of US national academy).

Edited February 24, 2015 by Clair93

[TaxAHCruel]

To the first person who commented on my thread. He says he HEARD that Flews conversion had something to do with his old age, and his book was ghost written. Typical atheist non-sense and lies.

 

I said that that was what I had heard. Which is true because - that is what I had heard. So exactly where is my lie here? Or are you just so keen to display your bias with lines like "Typical Atheist" that I do not actually have to tell a lie - for you to roll out the mantra?

 

The reasons for thinking Flew did not actually write this book at all have been well documented. So perhaps it would be useful to get your facts straight before presuming to accuse others of dishonesty or distortions.

 

Davies also dismisses the idea that the order of the universe is imposed by our minds.

 

My point exactly. The "laws" are not really laws but descriptions. They are merely descriptions of how the universe around us works and operates. We call them "laws" in science but unfortunately it a theistic tactic to over impute meaning to the word "law" and act like it presumes a law giver. It does no such thing. The "Laws" in science can be better thought of as "Observations".

 

The rest of the second posters post is not really worth going over

 

Nice dodge. If you can not reply to someone or something - merely declare it "not worth it" and then run.

 

Now, atheist love to claim Einstein for some reason.

 

Quite the opposite. It is theists that love to falsely claim him. To me however Einstein is not relevant at all in the god debate. What he believed either way is irrelevant to the average atheist. Because the average atheist does not care WHO is espousing an idea. At all. Their care if for WHY they are espousing it.

 

When discussing whether there is a god therefore - we want to know the basis for claiming there is one. If someone claims (falsely or otherwise) that "Einstein believe in a god" or "Einstein was theist/atheist" I will do nothing but point out that my question has not been answered yet.

 

Let me repeat that in short as it is a useful thing to know: For the Atheist generally WHO believes a claim is entirely irrelevant. WHY they believe it is what is interesting. So if Flew or Einstein have the idea of a god - then I am merely waiting for the substantiation for their claim.

 

It is so apparent God exists, and essentially all the great minds who have walked this planet agreed.

 

Then - despite being called on it - you are merely resorting once again to a combination of AAP and AFA. Two known fallacies. Simply calling it "apparent" is not an argument or a point. It is a dodge and a cop out.

 

That is even assuming your claim was correct that "all" these minds agreed in the first place. Not seeing any evidence for that claim either.

 

There either is a god - or there is not. Simple as that. There either is substantiation for the claim there is a god - or there is not. Simple as that. And thus far - from you at least - the answer is "not". But I am - as ever - all ears if you manage to find any.

 

I, myself, go with what Jesus said, because He was the greatest individual to walk this planet.

 

Even assuming there was such a person - I would see little reason to call him the greatest person ever. At best he was a moral philosopher somewhat ahead of his time - but behind ours in many ways. I can see little reason to elevate him too high at all - let alone to the top.

[autumnnight]

Even assuming there was such a person

 

Understanding you were wound up, but this statement is just not intelligent. No matter who you believe he was in terms of God or Christ, there IS evidence that the man existed.

 

As for the rest of it, I have never heard of the author or the book in the OP.

 

And it doesn't really matter to me which atheists because believers or which believers became atheists.

 

I believe what I believe for the reasons that I believe it. And my IQ and education is my IQ and education. And others' railing about it isn't going to change my mind.

[youngskywalker]

I believe what I believe for the reasons that I believe it. And my IQ and education is my IQ and education. And others' railing about it isn't going to change my mind.

 

I view the above as a good summary of the argument. My close friend is a christian. I am not.

 

What separates the men from the boys is being able to acknowledge that both sides have empty voids. You see, my friend openly acknowledges that his faith is ill founded and that it is simply a matter of faith... not based on evidence. I greatly respect that point of view and respect his belief.

 

What gets me in a tizzy is when people think they can somehow prove that god exists and do not admit it's a matter of faith vs. a matter of understanding and intellect.

 

One last comment. The author of the book apparently became a theist. NOT a christian who believes the bible is the inerrant word of god. There is a big difference. It only admits the person is agnostic...at best. I am too. So the book is no big deal to me.

Edited February 25, 2015 by youngskywalker

[TheFinalWord]

Pretty interesting Endless! I will check it out.

[TaxAHCruel]

Understanding you were wound up

 

I have no recollection of experiencing any such emotions. So I assume this is just one of those red herring "Oh hit a nerve did I" style comments.

 

but this statement is just not intelligent. No matter who you believe he was in terms of God or Christ, there IS evidence that the man existed.

 

And the point I was making was one that was independent of whether the man existed or not - which is why I phrased it like I did. There is actually quite a few arguments on this subject, it is not as established as you might want to pretend. But I repeat - that has nothing to do with the point I was actually making.

 

As for the rest of it, I have never heard of the author or the book in the OP. And it doesn't really matter to me which atheists because believers or which believers became atheists.

 

Here we agree fully for sure. There are conversions to and from both camps all the time. From the "lowly" shop assistent to the "lofty" pHd. Simply focusing in one on because he happened to be a well known atheist before the conversion - is just an example of the personality cult thinking some people operate under.

 

I repeat what I said to the OP in my post before this one: WHO espouses these ideas is entirely irrelevant. It is the basis of their claims that is interesting. This is why - for example - I never mention what my qualifications are on forums. My ideas and claims and arguments stand for themselves. Who I am while making them - or what letters I have before or after my name - could not be less relevant.

 

One last comment. The author of the book apparently became a theist.

 

If even that. Many of the idea he expresses are Deistic, not even Theistic. But as was pointed out earlier there are reasons to think he did not even write much - if any - of the book at all.