Atheist finds 'God' after 50 years

Gaurdian ^ | December 11, 2004 | Laura Smith

[Lorianne]

A philosophy professor who has been a leading proponent of atheism for more than 50 years has decided that God may exist after all.

Antony Flew, 81, now believes scientific evidence supports the theory that some sort of intelligence created the universe. But he continues to reject traditional religious ideas of God and especially the idea of salvation after death.

He said: "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 still accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory but doubts it can explain the complexities of the origins of life.

Throughout his career, Flew has expounded the lack of evidence for the existence of God while lecturing at St John's College, Oxford and King's College, London. He said his change of heart had been a gradual process prompted by new scientific research.

Speaking in a new video, Has Science Discovered God?, Flew argues that the 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."

The first indication of his about-turn came in a letter to Philosophy Now magazine, in which he said: "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."

Flew, who is writing an introduction of a new edition of his work, God and Philosophy, said: "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

[PLK]

This guy is the religious equivalent of the flat earth society. Ironically, in their intellectual superiority, they believe themselves to be the sophisticated thinkers.

They are pretty funny in their smugness. Yea, right, there is no God - whatever.

[PLK]

It is the fatal conceit of modern man to deny God under any and all circumstances.

Well said. I refer to this as "ignorant arrogance."

When man can't "figure out" God, or be given "proof," he concludes God must not exist.

How pathetically naive. To say, in effect, "I can't explain this, therefore it does not exist."

[sirjohn]

<< nor do i think it's insignificant when a professional atheist changes his mind...>>.


A professional athiest...there's gold in them thar hills.

[microgood]

You are closest to God just after birth and just before death. It's all the time in the middle that gets us in trouble.

I remember that as well. Thanks for reminding me and for your service as well. I worked for (not in) the Navy for quite a while but do not know what RVN71 is.

[sirjohn]

"Mommy, where did I come from? Why did God make me?"

"He wanted you to grow up to be a professional athiest."

[ProudVet77]

Republic of Viet Nam class of '71

[sirjohn]

<< This guy is the religious equivalent of the flat earth society. Ironically, in their intellectual superiority, they believe themselves to be the sophisticated thinkers. >>

Bingo. They want an answer that will satisfy the intellect - as if they created intellect.

[MCH]

He said: "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."

Yeah right. Suddenly I'm reminded of that famous verse of scripture from Jeremicah 96:3 that goes "and thou shalt feed thy enemies and non-believers into a plastic shredder so as to remove them from mine sight."

Oriental? Huh?

[microgood]

How pathetically naive. To say, in effect, "I can't explain this, therefore it does not exist."

This actually started in the 1600s with Locke,Hume,Berkeley. Berkeley thought that to exist you had to be perceived. The tree in the forest was covered by God seeing it. But it seems this thinking is a spinoff of the empiricist and rationalist thinking of the 1600s.

[fourthrider]

>Just because you don't want something to exist, that doesn't >mean it doesn't exist.

There's no "want" in the position I espouse...as I've said, I could be wrong, but I'm much more comfortable in a position that does not rely upon the mystical to explain existence.

And of course the converse of your collary is equally valid; just because you want something to exist, doesn't mean it does.

[sirjohn]

I never said I wanted anything to exist. Quite the contrary, to be scientific one should consider the possibility that nothing exists at all. Are you capable of this?

I did say that logic will get you nowhere.

For example, you seem to say you won't be satisfied without some kind of proof, i.e., a proof that answers to your intellect. But then you say that proof isn't even possible. So where does this leave you?

I agree with you that intellectual proof isn't possible. But you don't rely on the intellect to tell you water is good when you're thirsty.

I don't mean to be unkind, but since you think in terms of "A" versus "B" - it can only be one or the other, two logical opposites, both of which are absurd - this indicates to me you are a little slow of wit.

Are you the author of the intellect of which you seem so proud?

Did you ever wonder where you came from?

[fourthrider]

>Did you ever wonder where you came from?

Well, given that both parents are planted and barring any genetic evidence to the contrary, I assume I occurred as the result of an exchange of fluids between my parents.

But I suspect you are alluding to an argument of "first causes" which is both pointless and circular.

The only idea I'm trying to raise here is that human existence can be understood without having to rely upon mystical explanations.

For me that works, there is for me no mystical underpinning for our being around pumping air. And when we stop pumping air we just stop, that's it....nothing else follows.

I'm not bothered by that prospect in the least...but if one feels the need to infer that there is more beyond this life, there's no harm, no foul. If they're right, they're right, if they're wrong, it won't make any difference to them -- they'll never know :)

I, speaking for myself, and only for myself, find life to be a lot more understandable proceeding on the basis that there is no underlying mystical component to it.

[sirjohn]

<< For me that works, there is for me no mystical underpinning for our being around pumping air. And when we stop pumping air we just stop, that's it....nothing else follows. >>


If all you are is a hunk of protoplasm, I guess there is no sense continuing this conversation. I'm not interested in exchanging ideas with a piece of meat. Good day.