[jennyp]

Here's the latest news on the "noted atheist finds God" front. Flew says he was "misled" by Richard Dawkins, and "mistaught" by Gerald Schroeder. Weird stuff!

[gobucks]

They have got him backtracking a little bit with regards to Dawkins, but in short, he's done w/ adovcating out right atheism.

The rank and file are not pleased. No indeedy. The sexual rule book has not been subject to change since the 60's. I won't be surprised if Flew has an 'accident' in the next few weeks, a stumble, a fall. Yes, it sounds kooky to say that, but when it comes to faith, belief, and the god fathers of that faith and belief, well, some disciples have been known to get flaky.

Just ask S. Rushdie.

[mike182d]

Flew says he was "misled" by Richard Dawkins, and "mistaught" by Gerald Schroeder

Who were, in turn, mislead by Darwin and every one of his subsequent successors.

[jennyp]

Antony-Flew-Partial-Switchback-Update PING.

[BikerNYC]

he was ... "mistaught"

He was mistaught? That might work for a 12-year-old, but he's been around awhile to check things out for himself. How odd.

[snarks_when_bored]

This is just sad. On earlier threads, I suggested that, because of his age, Flew was quite possibly losing a step or two. This piece by Carrier would appear to support that view.

Sad.

(Thanks for the ping, jennyp.)

[headsonpikes]

Not everyone is sharp into great age; hardly anyone is, actually.

At his age, Flew should confine himself to wondering whether to eat a peach, and keeping his trousers rolled. ;^)

[VOA]

"Here's the latest news on the "noted atheist finds God" front. Flew says he was "misled"
by Richard Dawkins, and "mistaught" by Gerald Schroeder. Weird stuff!"

About all Flew needs is to be pointed to G.K. Chesterton.
About a century ago, he (in so many words) said he put his faith/belief about
ultimate causes in the orthodox teaching of Christianity.

Otherwise, he'd spend all his days (and nights) needing to adopt a new belief system
put forward by the high priests of science that were the most influential at the time.
(honestly, the most fashionable ones...)

(N.B.: this was NOT advocacy of "obscurantism"...simply noting the constantly
shifting sands when humanity depends on an endless string of geeks to tell
them how to live their lives.)

[VOA]

"Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship
can only help to make belief look ridiculous."

Hmmm...no mention of the lengthy interview with Prof. Gary Habermas in this article.
And no explicit and specific refutation of that interview.

Well, in the interest of full and unbridled access to source materials, here's the link to
Flew's interview with Habermas
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
(downloadable .pdf also linked on that page)
WARNING: the interview will be unsettling to folks that like Islam and The World Council of Churches).

The interview was also mentioned today on Charles Colson's "Breakpoint Commentary" at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318594/posts

I'll post the URL for this thread at the thread listed just above.

[VOA]

bump for publicity...

[wideawake]

It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible scholarship.

Well, it's now established that the author of this piece is an imbecile of the first water.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[AndrewC]

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

Well, name a single presentable theory.