Posted on 11/03/2006 1:47:02 PM PST by SirLinksalot
Why Top Atheist Now Believes in a Creator
By Lee Strobel
11.2.06
Some news items are so staggering that they demand personal investigation. That was the case with the stunning announcement in late 2004 that the world’s most famous philosophical atheist, Dr. Antony Flew, had abandoned his skepticism and now believes in a Creator.
Finally, I was able to sit down with the Oxford-educated author of three dozen books – including The Presumption of Atheism and Atheistic Humanism – and interview him about his new conclusions. The remarkable conversation was captured on video and is now available in free clips at www.LeeStrobel.com. Here are some highlights of my chat with the spry 83-year-old professor.
Flew was warm and friendly during our conversation, offering thoughtful responses to my questions. He seemed comfortable in talking about his new beliefs, yet he was still careful in how he stated his position. It was clear that he was still thinking through some of the implications of his new-found belief in a Creator.
Asked what prompted him to so dramatically change his views, Flew focused on one particular issue. "Einstein felt that there must be intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical world," he said. "If that is a sound argument, the integrated complexity of the organic world is just inordinately greater – all the creatures are complicated pieces of design. So an argument that is important about the physical world is immeasurably stronger when applied to the biological world."
He said in his opinion it was "just obvious that [this] argument is much stronger now" than ever before.
Interestingly, this is some of the evidence I discuss in my book The Case for a Creator, which retraces and expands upon the scientific investigation that led me from atheism to Christianity. Included in my book is an eye-opening interview with Dr. Michael Behe, the biochemist from Lehigh University, who describes complex and interdependent biological systems that can’t be explained by Darwinian evolution and instead are better explained as the work of an Intelligent Designer.
During my interview, Flew spoke out strongly against Islam (calling it "intellectually contemptible") and made it clear that he’s not yet a Christian. Still, as I pressed him on the attributes of the God he believes in, I was struck by how they tracked so well with the Christian conception of the Creator. For instance, Flew said he thinks the Creator is an omnipotent, eternal, conscious and intelligent being.
Although Flew takes a deistic approach by saying the Creator is uninvolved with humanity, he did concede that "it’s a reasonable thing for someone to argue" that the Creator is caring toward those he created.
Concerning Christianity, Flew called Jesus "a defining case of a charismatic figure." I probed on the issue of the resurrection – a topic on which the atheist Flew had debated with Christian philosopher Gary Habermas in the past. Previously, Flew’s position was that a miraculous event like the resurrection wasn’t possible because God didn’t exist.
I pointed out that since Flew now believes in a supernatural Creator, then the possibility of Jesus’ resurrection becomes more plausible. His reply was encouraging to me: "I’m sure you’re right about this, yes," he said.
Still, Flew said he hopes there is no afterlife. "I don’t want to go on forever," he said. "Really?" I asked. "Even if there’s a heaven?" Flew replied: "Well, it would depend rather on what the activities were."
"If the Christian God exists," I said, "What would he have to do to convince you?"
As an atheist for most of his life, this wasn’t something Flew had pondered. "I’ve never thought about this at all," he said. Then he added: "But he would presumably know."
I pointed out that famous atheist Bertrand Russell said that if he were ever confronted with God, he would complain to him that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence of his existence. "But you’ve found enough evidence of an Intelligence, so you’re further along than he was."
"Yes, oh, yes," he said. "I mean, there’s been a gigantic advance in the sciences since the death of Bertrand Russell."
I asked whether it would require an encounter with God for him to believe in Christianity. "Well, yes, it would, but until you’ve had that experience, I think it’s impossible to believe it. You know, if I now had this sort of experience, it wouldn’t seem right to me. I would wonder what was going on [and whether] I was going crazy."
His biggest barrier to Christianity, he said, is the doctrine of hell. "If I had begun as a Christian believer, I should have believed in the goodness of God, and I should regard it—as I do regard it now—as totally inconsistent with the doctrine of eternal torment for anyone."
At one point, he commented: "If I had been brought up in a Catholic school [with the teaching about hell], I would presumably have been terrorized into belief."
I mentioned to him that my book The Case for Faith includes an interview with Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland on the rationality of hell. Flew said he would be willing to read the chapter if I sent it to him.
A few minutes later, as we were saying goodbye in the lobby of the hotel where the interview had taken place, someone came up to me with a copy of The Case for Faith and asked if I would sign it.
Instead, I promised to send the person another copy—and promptly took the book, marked the chapter on hell, and gave it to Flew.
No word yet on whether it has influenced his thinking.
Jesus used an OT phrase to describe Hell. He specifically stated, "...hell, where the fire never goes out" and "...hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"
You, however, want to take his clear statement and allegorize it to a warning to Israel. It is, rather, a warning to all.
I am still waiting for Scriptural support from you for your position. Mine is unassailable.
Jesus is warning about eternal consequences. The natural meaning of his words is the meaning I take. What else might He mean by His reference to unending fire, etc., than that the fire will not end for the person experiencing it?
After all, His comments are very personal: sacrifice essential body parts for heaven's sake. He presents the choice: pay a small price now, or a big one later. Eternally.
If you move your imagination to include the real world as structured also with the fourth dimension of time, then all that we perceive as existing is of zero extent in time. 8 ft. x 10 ft. x 30 ft. x 0 seconds = 0 space time units. Existing things are insubstantial projections in space-time according to current theory. Like a photon in three dimensional space, will suddenly appear, then vanish from some point in space, ponderous objects appear then vanish from four-dimensional space-time. All that we conceive of existing can be (and was) borne from nothing. Just ask a physicist!
Gerald Schroeder, "The Science Of God"
My thanks to you both. The protocol with which I am most accustomed, involves the citation of a reference in connection with a major point raised in a discussion. Clearly, this is not a protocol with which either of you are comfortable. My apologies; I will not trouble you with such a request, again.
Thank you, Forgiven_Sinner, for the wonderful material which you have provided me.
I believe in a Supreme Being Creator God. One of the main problems I have with the Christian God is that I am required to believe in him as a condition of everlasting life.
If the reward is so great, and the alternative so terrible, and God is all-good, and belief in him is a requirement of everlasting life, then why hasn't God presented us with absolute proof of His existence?
Why has he left the world in such a way as it's *reasonable* to withhold judgement on the question of whether He actually exists or not?
The only conclusion I can draw is that either God is not the God of Christianity and that he actually doesn't require belief in Him in order to receive a reward for living a good life, or that God is actually not all-good, or that God simply just does not exist, or that God is not all-powerful. Those are the only valid conclusions I can come up with.
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.