Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

Yahoo ^ | 12/9/04 | RICHARD N. OSTLING

[ZGuy]

NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"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 said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' 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," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

[lonevoice]

A very interesting read!

[stacytec]

Flew is a philosopher and as such can choose to use different schools of thought to explore problems. He has the flexibility of being able to explore ideas of creation outside of the confides of scientific methodology. He can choose to believe in things using standards of his own selection. Atheists aren't all cut from the same block of wood, some of us have different philosophical backgrounds. I've read Flew would say that his acceptance of ID seems reasonable to his standards ( which have changed through the years) but not to someone who resides staunchly in the school of modern skepticism like myself.

[jwalsh07]

He's probably gotten over hating the old man and being a smart guy realizes that calling oneself an atheist is really an untenable position.

[MeekOneGOP]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

Excerpt:

NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[airborne]

"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 said.

Well, he still is wrong!

[shubi]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1291515/posts

Want to try to convince some staunch followers of Morris and Ham about this?

[dimmer-rats stealvotes]

Poor old fool. (From Psalms 14:1: The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.) Better he wised up late than never, but so what? He's a dime a dozen as an atheist: a little more valuable as a believer.

[jonno]

Bump!

[syriacus]

A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

If I've got this straight, Flew thinks he needs God, in order to explain the existence of the complex Cosmos we've found ourselves in. But Flew also thinks that same God needs to be minimal.

Hmmmm....

[Kevin OMalley]

Interesting. Ping for later review.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Maybe he's a "Frisbee-tarian" When they die their souls fly up on the roof and nobody can get it down. :^)

[newberger]

Actually, Flew is one of the most influential philosophers in the world.

This is really HUGE (no, I don't mean "hugh") news. He is part of the bedrock intellectual base for atheism. I think an earthquake just occurred. Many folks here just don't realize the immensity of this news. I'm not speaking of Flew's salvation, I'm talking about the whole world of ideas.

His comments about Intelligent Design will Phillip Johnson and company a tremendous boost. Morris and Ham may have lost a few points.

I love the line about "I don't thnk its a big deal". That's just a way of saying, "Move along, fellow atheists. Nothing to see here."

As to his not being a Christian, CS Lewis took years to go from atheist to idealist, idealist to theist, and lastly theist to Christian.

[Dimensio]

He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

This exposes either the ignorance of the article's author or of Flew himself.

The ultimate origins of life are a seperate matter from Darwinian evolution. No, Darwinian evolution does not explain the ultimate origins of life, but then it never tried to explain it. It's like arguing that Darwinian evolution is inadequate to explain how to properly install Windows XP. Yes, the theory doesn't explain that matter at all, but the theory was never devised to explain such a thing.

[Dimensio]

Sounds to me like he's decided that since he can't come up with an explanation, he's giving in to assigning responsibility to an omnipotent (but minimalist) entity. Argument from ignorance, "I can't imagine a better explanation, so it must have been a divine agent." Actually rather arrogant and presumptious, for him to assume to know so much about the universe to rule out all but divine origin.

[xJones]

But what if this possibly intelligent and even perhaps purposeful god doesn't believe in Antony Flew?

After all, it's all about the importance of being Antony, isn't it?

[Spok]

He waited until he was 81 to read Thomas Aquinas?

[shubi]

judge not

[shubi]

It doesn't explain how to install XP?

LOL

[snarks_when_bored]

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," [Flew] wrote.

Current inability to explain a phenomenon scientifically does not imply that phenomenon's scientific inexplicability.

Professor Flew finds himself unable to explain the appearance of the first reproducing organism, and so he elects to posit the existence of a non-physical universal intelligence that (somehow) produced that organism (and, presumably, everything else). Either Flew has an exaggerated sense of his own intelligence ("If I can't explain it, it can't be scientifically explained!") or else he's lost a step or three in his judgment of the soundness of arguments (or both).

Flew is 81 years old—it's probably not that easy for him to micturate, either.

---

(Okay, that last bit was a snark, but, hey, I'm bored, and if I don't say something like that every now and then, I'm gonna have to forfeit my log-in name.)

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Facing the inevitability of imminent death certainly has a tendency to focus one's attention.

The reality is we should all feel that intensity.

I wonder if he'll live long enough to change his "opinion" about no afterlife?

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.