Posted on 12/26/2004 2:12:39 PM PST by protest1
Atheist's turn toward God was a 4-year process, friend says Dec 22, 2004 By David Roach
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Christian apologist Gary Habermas had just finished debating noted British atheist Antony Flew about the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The two friends rode an elevator together as they left the Californian university where the debate was held in January 2002. As Habermas exited the elevator, he extended his hand through the open door. "Tony," he said, "this is it for now. I enjoyed talking with you. When you become a Christian, I want to be the first one to know."
Flew laughed and responded, "I think you deserve that right."
The doors closed.
Most observers of the debate never thought that Flew would take steps toward Christianity. The former professor at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain had argued against the existence of God for more than 50 years, publishing such books as "Atheistic Humanism" and "Darwinian Evolution."
But in December 2004 the unexpected happened when Flew took a step toward Christianity, announcing that scientific evidence led him to a belief in God.
Habermas was among the first people he told.
Habermas, chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., had known that Flew was reconsidering his position since the fall of 2000 when Flew sent Habermas a letter in which the atheist acknowledged the strength of arguments for theism and Christianity.
"In September 2000, that's about the earliest indication that I had that he was changing," Habermas said in an interview with Baptist Press. "He wrote me a long letter, quite an incredible letter, where at several points he conceded the evidence for [theism and Christianity]."
When Habermas received the letter, he knew something was happening in Flew's life.
"I distinctly remember reading that letter when it came in the mail and thinking, 'Wow, something huge is happening with this guy,'" Habermas said.
Over a period of three years the two scholars corresponded about God. By January 2003 Flew began considering arguments from the "intelligent design" movement and was on the verge of belief in God.
Intelligent design is a theory arguing that some features of the natural world are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause rather than naturalistic evolution.
"He told me he was really rethinking theism and had corresponded with [naturalistic scientist Richard] Dawkins and was putting the ID arguments up against what Dawkins was saying and trying to compare the arguments," Habermas said. "And he was going back and forth as to whether he should be a theist or not."
By early 2004, Flew completed his transition to theism and indicated his change of mind to Habermas in a telephone conversation.
When media reports revealed Flew's belief in God in December 2004, some skeptics argued that the former atheist had changed his mind suddenly. But Habermas said such allegations are clearly incorrect in light of the four-year dialogue he had with Flew.
"The implications that he's just recently arrived at theism ... and that he hasn't had time to think through this aren't correct," Habermas said. "The first sign that I've seen of him changing goes back to the fall of 2000. So he's been thinking about these things for four years."
Flew currently holds a position known as deism -- the belief that God created the universe but is not actively involved in people's lives today, Habermas said. Because deism is traditionally a "tenuous" position, Flew could move closer to traditional Christianity in the days ahead, he said.
"Deism is a very tenuous position, and deistic belief is a short-lived movement in the history of philosophy over the last few centuries," Habermas said. "One reason deism is a troubled position is that it usually moves one way or the other."
Flew could revert back to atheism, Habermas noted. "Still, he has made a number of statements to me indicating that he is open, even to revelation," Habermas said.
"Three weeks ago I received a letter from him where he said that he was rereading my arguments for the resurrection and was very impressed with them,'" he said.
Despite his interest in the resurrection, however, Flew remains far from belief in Christianity, Habermas said.
"He's told me on many occasions that he was impressed with the arguments for the resurrection ... and he says it's the best miracle claim in the history of religions," Habermas recounted. "So he's impressed with them. Enough to believe? I don't think so, certainly not right now."
The dialogue with Flew highlights the need for Christians to engage non-believers in meaningful, caring friendships, Habermas said. Christian scholars in particular should bear in mind the need to build relationships with non-believing scholars, he said.
There are "benefits of carrying on a genuine friendship with people who do not agree with you on things," Habermas said. "I mean a genuine friendship where you're there for them in season and out of season. You're there for them when they're having bad days. You can tell them things that are on your mind. ... It's not connected to whether the people convert or not."
Christians should rejoice that Flew has adopted a belief in God but remember that mere belief in God falls short of the belief in Jesus Christ that Scripture requires for eternal life, Habermas said.
"His deism provides no relief for dying because he doesn't believe in life after death," he said. "It's not ... an 81-year-old who is embracing God so that he can come out on the good side when he dies. If you said that to him, he would say, 'I'm just going where the evidence leads.'"
An interview conducted by Habermas exploring Flew's conversion to belief in God will be published in the winter 2004 issue of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
Another attempt at humility?
Anything can be "tested" using a scientific method. Darwinian theory "proves" that.
Your Darwinian habit of constructing straw men is showing again. The statement was "more sane" not "insane", a comparative is not an "absolute".
"I spent 20 years in hospital nursing, 10 of it in ICU. "
I had a friend who was a nurse administrator in the oncology ward. She definitely believes in a higher power. She witnessed or was privy to a number of episodes that could not be explained any other way.
In one case, a nurse friend was summoned by a panel light to an empty room, a room occupied a few hours before by a middle aged woman who had died a very painful cancer death. When the nurse got there, she heard a voice thanking her for her kindness.
My mother in law died at home after a long fight with bone cancer. My brother in law was sleeping there when he woke to the sound of footsteps, only no one was walking around. My mother in law had died. When my father in law and brother in law went outside that May morning at 1:AM, all the birds were singing.
Is this because you are holding Christendom to a higher standard?
---No, I think I made that point pretty clearly when I said "I fail to see the importance of any one person becoming Christian, or atheist, or Hindu, or whatever." There should really be no impact, I think, on your personal choice based on OTHERS' personal choices. I don't care if Richard Gere is interested in Buddhism or tree-worshipping.
Do you hold secularists to the same standard, when they trumpet a list of intellectuals and/or celebrities who markedly do not endorse Christ, in order to reject Christianity out of hand?
---Yes.
Consider the quotes of St. Paul, about "...consider bretheren, how you were called--not many wise, not many successful" (my paraphrase), or about "becoming all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."
---I understand your point, but I feel like there is a difference in trying to convince people of the righteousness of your cause, and trying to sell them something. If we package God, is the message the same? I don't think it is at all. "Billy Bob Thornton says, Buy Jesus! On sale EVERYWHERE!" And that same passage was used to convert Christianity to include worship of voodoo gods and Native nature worship.
I don't know that Christianity or the people who practice these mutated versions of Christianity are better for it.
Agreed. But from the perspective of proselytizing, I don't see it being a good sales tool, and worse, I don't believe that Jesus being SOLD to people works to make them Christian at all.
I don't see how I'm on the wrong side. I never said otherwise.
Going forth and making disciples does NOT mean waving the converted around like a bloody shirt. To me, it means YOU living a Christian life and YOU being an example to others, and if they are interested, telling them about YOUR faith.
I may not be much of a Christian, but I know what makes a difference in people's hearts, and it's not Pax TV or CBN or other flashy marketing. It's seeing others from similar walks of life who live as Christians, and appreciating their perspective on a one-to-one basis. I don't believe that talking about others' beliefs in an effort to promote your own is a successful way to produce Christians. I would hazard a guess that anti-Catholic screeds and overplaying the 'evil atheist' card have driven more people from the flock than they have brought in.
Maybe the best riposte I've received. But on the other hand, I wasn't addressing this to the individual importance of PEOPLE, but to their value as proselytizing tools.
If interested, read the book, More Than a Carpenter, by Josh McDowell. Like Flew, he was an atheist, trying to prove that God didn't exist and Jesus was definitely not the Son of God or a Saviour. His research led him to believe otherwise.
Evidently so, you changed the words to suit yourself. I've already explained that what I wrote and what you wrote are not synonomous. No reason to rehash old ground. See above if you need to review.
What was your intended message, exactly, if it was not that?
It was exactly what I said. Flew claims that his 50 year study of the science has led him to believe in a deistic Creator. There's no argument there, its Flew's own words.
I said "Gotcha," because I didn't know why you were so stuck on this Flew person being a theist, then I THOUGHT you'd explained it.
This is garbage. Why don't you support the contention that I am "stuck on this Flew person being a theist." You need to read what I write and quit editorializing or fantasizing, one or the other.
However, now I'm not sure I understand the whoop-de-do, since your point evidently ISN'T that science proves theism.
Do you think it is possible that science can prove theism?
Schroeder is interesting but I am not sure a literalist view of the Bible can be reconciled with his perception of the 6 days of Creation.
Then you should probably read Schroeder.
This is garbage. Why don't you support the contention that I am "stuck on this Flew person being a theist." You need to read what I write and quit editorializing or fantasizing, one or the other.
---I am contending that because of my perception that you are excited by Flew's conversion to theism. Your statement was that "Flew finding it is news." and that this is "significant." I don't think it's significant at all, either to people's own decision regarding faith OR to the religious community.
Do you think it is possible that science can prove theism?
---No, nor do I think it's possible science can prove atheism. Proof is not possible in matter of faith.
Then you should probably read Schroeder.
---I don't have any such inclination. I just have to read criticisms posted by literalists to tell me that he's done what William Jennings Bryan did, and that's not wholly faithful with the language of The Book.
For example, according to Dr. Schroeder, since the universe started in such a very tiny volume, the first twenty-four hour day was a time period of 8 billion years. As the universe continued to expand, the second day was only 4 billion years, the third day was 2 billion years, the fourth day was 1 billion years, the fifth day was 1/2 billion years and the sixth day was 1/4 billion years for a grand total of 15 3/4 billion years. He does not rest this choice of variable ‘day’ lengths on any discernible scientific reasoning, nor does he offer any Biblical basis for such a division. We are merely supposed to accept his re-definition of the word ‘day’ and ignore all the Biblical evidence (such as Genesis 1:5 and Exodus 20:8–11) that each Creation day was essentially the same length of time as an ordinary day of the week today.
Moreover, Dr. Schroeder’s arbitrary numbers are not consistent with each other. He chooses to divide ’the 15 billion years by the degree of expansion of the universe, which he defines as a million million (1,000,000,000,000), and then multiplying that by 365 for the number of days in a year. He states that the answer is approximately 6, proving his theory, which states that we are in the afternoon of the sixth day. However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet reached the sixth day. Therefore, according to his theory, animals and humans should not be around.
So what?
---No, nor do I think it's possible science can prove atheism. Proof is not possible in matter of faith.
Well, thank you for validating my opinion that you're original "Gotcha" was simply condescension writ large.
---I don't have any such inclination.
You write this and then offer a treatise on Schroeder. I wasn't aware arrogance came in such extremes. Live and learn.
Not to worry, AC....the poster's argument is with God, after all. I am only repeating the Word of God. Ergo, the poster doesn't recognize it and doesn't like it. That's probably because he is his own god. Making for a very small god, I might add.
If I want a textbook example of arrogance, I need only read your responses to anyone on this thread who responds to a single of your posts. Having had quite enough of your churlish comments, I bid good day to you, sir.
:-} Very funny, an imitation of English socialist?
Once again, it's only Christ, as there is no other way. Pax TV and/or CBN, plus hosts of other mechanisms are simply means of communication to the end that Christ is the Savior. To the end that those media do that, then it is good. To the end that they do not proclaim that, then it is bad. It's that simple.
And also, the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as given to us in the Word of God (i.e., the Bible, not as from anyone who differs from the Bible) can and will take on many forms. Part of that "form" may very well involve the understanding of what the Bible says. That understanding can also come from others who are in the same position as the reader, when then lends some understanding to the reader. Hence, the "stories" of a person's own personal experience as it relates to what God is doing in their own life.
Repeating once more -- as this is the absolute key.
In John 14:6 --
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
That's not Buddha, Joseph Smith, the Pope, the Watchtower Society, the Dahli Lama, Mohammed, or any of the other countless counterfeit Christs (if anyone chooses these over Christ).
We should all praise the Lord, those of us who are actually of Christ.
Psalm 105
1 Oh, give thanks to the Lord! Call upon His name;
Make known His deeds among the peoples!
2 Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him; Talk of all His
wondrous works!
3 Glory in His holy name; Let the hearts of those
rejoice who seek the Lord!
4 Seek the Lord and His strength; Seek His face
evermore!
5 Remember His marvelous works which He has done,
His wonders, and the judgments of His mouth,
6 O seed of Abraham His servant, You children of
Jacob, His chosen ones!
7 He is the Lord our God; His judgments are in all
the earth.
8 He remembers His covenant forever, The word which
He commanded, for a thousand generations,
9 The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His
oath to Isaac,
10 And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To
Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11 Saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan
As the allotment of your inheritance,"
12 When they were few in number, Indeed very few,
and strangers in it.
13 When they went from one nation to another, From
one kingdom to another people,
14 He permitted no one to do them wrong; Yes, He
rebuked kings for their sakes,
15 Saying, "Do not touch My anointed ones, And do
My prophets no harm."
16 Moreover He called for a famine in the land; He
destroyed all the provision of bread.
17 He sent a man before them -- Joseph-- who was
sold as a slave. 18 They hurt his feet with
fetters, He was laid in irons.
19 Until the time that his word came to pass, The
word of the Lord tested him.
20 The king sent and released him, The ruler of the
people let him go free.
21 He made him lord of his house, And ruler of all
his possessions,
22 To bind his princes at his pleasure, And teach
his elders wisdom.
23 Israel also came into Egypt, And Jacob dwelt in
the land of Ham.
24 He increased His people greatly, And made them
stronger than their enemies.
25 He turned their heart to hate His people, To
deal craftily with His servants.
26 He sent Moses His servant, And Aaron whom He had
chosen.
27 They performed His signs among them, And wonders
in the land of Ham.
28 He sent darkness, and made it dark; And they did
not rebel against His word.
29 He turned their waters into blood, And killed
their fish.
30 Their land abounded with frogs, Even in the
chambers of their kings.
31 He spoke, and there came swarms of flies, And
lice in all their territory.
32 He gave them hail for rain, And flaming fire in
their land.
33 He struck their vines also, and their fig trees,
And splintered the trees of their territory.
34 He spoke, and locusts came, Young locusts
without number,
35 And ate up all the vegetation in their land, And
devoured the fruit of their ground.
36 He also destroyed all the firstborn in their
land, The first of all their strength.
37 He also brought them out with silver and gold,
And there was none feeble among His tribes.
38 Egypt was glad when they departed, For the fear
of them had fallen upon them.
39 He spread a cloud for a covering, And fire to
give light in the night.
40 The people asked, and He brought quail, And
satisfied them with the bread of heaven.
41 He opened the rock, and water gushed out; It ran
in the dry places like a river.
42 For He remembered His holy promise, And Abraham
His servant.
43 He brought out His people with joy, His chosen
ones with gladness.
44 He gave them the lands of the Gentiles, And they
inherited the labor of the nations,
45 That they might observe His statutes And keep
His laws. Praise the Lord!
The promises the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob keeps with Israel, which stand forever (as He says), He also keeps with us in Jesus Christ (those which He has given to us in the Bible, His Word).
Jesus says we are not to hide the light that is in us. That goes for all who are His, from the least to the greatest. We, as the true believers in Christ (not simply church-goers or members of a congregation or whatever group), are to continually show the "light" of Christ (in us) to the world constantly. The Bible is full of that exhortation to all believers.
Matthew 5:14-16
14 You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a
hill cannot be hidden.
15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on
a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your
good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
You need to be reading your Bible a little bit more.
Regards,
Star Traveler
But from the perspective of proselytizing, I don't see it being a good sales tool
However, once again from the cultural perspective - in a great part of popular discussion - there's only 1) what's known (by science alone) and 2) the unknown (everything else especially religion.)
Having this type of change and discussion in the realm of philosophy of science helps free the dialogue as well as avoiding forcing false choices such as "Science OR Relgion."
And, in this respect, it does help open minds, and remove the need for some plowing of ground to even begin proselytizing or apologetics.
Thanks for your reply..
Indeed. Since reading and studying some issues regarding the staggering, entwined complexity of the structure of the Bible, I've come to believe it would be almost impossible for anyone to open-mindedly and intellectually approach the Bible from that perspective and not be convinced of its divinity. The plaintext is wondrous enough, of course, but to see the way sixty-six separate books penned by over forty scribes over a period spanning thousands of years come together in an intricate mesh of perfection is utterly awesome. It is mathematically impossible that its origin isn't from a single source outside our space-time domain.
MM
Yes, but again, in your haste to tell me to pull out the Book, you miss the point. Trotting out Flew as evidence of the righteousness of His cause is hardly shining YOUR light. Take the plank out of your own eye next time before you tell me to read the Bible a bit more closely. That Jesus wants us to spread the Word has naught to do with spreading the news that Flew is a theist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.