He has a good argument no doubt. However, it's a big step from his idea of God to the one you go to church to try to talk to.
"At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake..."
Hmmmm. He's 81, not much time left on the calendar. Could this be a bit of philosophical CYA?
My first thought was about Madelein Murray O'Hair. I'm sure she's a believer by now.
I'll tell you what: there are only two kinds of people who could indulge in the kinds of remarks I'm seeing in this thread about some poor devil who's trying to make an effort to understand the Almighty after years of pigheaded disbelief. Christians (of course) and atheists.
Hey, Mr. Flew, I got one word for you... DUH!!!
Sometimes I wonder why Jesus Christ is attacked with such viciousness. I don't know the answer. Maybe it is because people know deep inside there maybe something right about it but would rather attack it than think about it or change. Maybe it is because becoming a Christian is so against everything we now believe in our culture (being cool, materialism, it is all about me, PC politics, etc.). Maybe it is because some live their entire lives in a set of beliefs and near the end of it look back and see it all mattered for nothing and are pissed.
Sometimes the concept of hell gets people worked up. The argument on "How can a good God cast people into hell when they have lived a pretty good life" is false logic. Hell is a place where God is absent. This is exactly what the people who rejected God all their lives wanted. The "pit" of hell maybe a very comfortable place where everyone who rejected God their entire lives must now reside knowing they had lived their lives in a lie. That they had wasted it all. That actually may be worse than a guy with pitchfork.
God has given us all the "free will" to chose. God has sent his only son to die for us, to suffer for our sins and to show us the way. God could have easily made a bunch of robots that would do everything he said but instead loved us enough for us to make our own decisions. I tell people to make their own decision after they have reviewed the evidence. After all, Jesus Christ's resurrection is either the supreme fact in the history of mankind or a gigantic hoax. If Christ's resurrection is true -- people ignore its implications at their own peril. If not -- Christianity is the biggest fraud in the history of the world and should be easy enough to disprove. If they believe it is a hoax, then they must take an honest look at the evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming...
Popular radio host David Brudnoy was a lifelong agnostic but in an interview on Tuesday, 2 days before he passed, he professed belief in God.
When a person steps in the right direction, you don't beat him over the head for not stepping far enough. I hope the people on this thread mocking Dr. Flew are not parents.
A belief in God has to precede a belief in Jesus. Once a man comes to the reality that there is a God, he can then accept that he is a sinner and unacceptable to God. Only then can a man realize he needs help from God and then is heart is open to accept Jesus as his savior. Its a process. For some the process takes seconds, for others years.
Since I doubt the good professor uncovered any additional INFORMATION to lead him to reverse himself on such an important question, it is clear that the fork in the road between theism and atheism is not a matter of education, it is a matter of some earlier premise, often at the sub-cognitive level.
On the one hand he is accepting a God that is involved in daily adjustments to create life while on the other hand he is a Deist that rejects the notion that God is involved in day to day affairs. He apparently has not noticed his inconsistency.
The real atheists began later. Also, remember that Darwin's writings occurred before genes and their ramifications were well known. I can not remember him quoted on any "gene" problem.
Militant atheism is a part and parcel of the dominant religion of our times--leftism. Its biggest proponents are Richard Dawkins et al. If you have a chance to review their arguments, you will find they declare their faith on a leap to faith a la Martin Luther. Dawkins portrays Darwin as the secular saint of secular leftism and implies he was an atheist which he was not.
I never met an Atheist on the battlefield.