Replies

Victor Stenger subjects Sir Antony Flew's recent (and much-publicized) 'conversion' from atheism to theism (or, better, deism) to critical scrutiny.

Numerous FR threads have been devoted to the Flew flap. Although I may have missed a few, here's the list I've come up with (from latest to earliest):

01/11/2005: Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of (Update - Jan. 2005)

01/11/2005: An Atheist Abandons Atheism

01/10/2005: Weighing the Evidence: An Atheist Abandons Atheism

12/29/2004: A Change of Mind for Antony Flew

12/24/2004: Going All the Way - An atheist "converts" to intelligent design. Why so timid, Mr. Flew?

12/21/2004: A Victory for Theism (The prominent atheist philosopher Antony Flew goes back to square one.)

12/13/2004: Sorry to Disappoint, Still an Atheist! [Antony Flew sets the record straight]

12/11/2004: Weighing the Evidence: An Atheist Abandons Atheism

12/10/2004: Atheist finds 'God' after 50 years

12/10/2004: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

12/09/2004: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

12/09/2004: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

Here's a link to the Anthony Aguirre article that Stenger refers to:

"The Cold Big-Bang Cosmology as a Counter-example to Several Anthropic Arguments" [Abstract, PDF version]

And I can't resist linking to a few more articles by Aguirre (and co-authors):

"Steady-State Eternal Inflation" (co-authored with Steven Gratton) [Abstract, PDF version]

"Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal" (co-authored with Steven Gratton) [Abstract, PDF version]

"Multiple universes, cosmic coincidences, and other dark matters" (co-authored with Max Tegmark) [Abstract, PDF version]

Ping

Fortunately, we can avoid an infinite regress. We can just stop at the world. There is no reason why the physical universe cannot be it’s own first cause. As we know from both everyday experience and sophisticated scientific observations, complex systems develop from simpler systems all the time in nature—with not even low intelligence required. A mist of water vapor can freeze into a snowflake. Winds can carve out great cathedrals in rock. Brontosaurs can evolve from bacteria.

And our relatively complex universe could have arisen out of the entity that is the simplest and most mindless of all—the void.

He is missing precisely the point --- the whole idea of an unmoved mover or a first cause is that the complex world we have cannot come from a void... but even if it did where did the void come from... there must be a being whose nature is beingness itself... hence God.

Flew has also warmed to contemporary design arguments: “I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”

The clearest evidence of truly intelligent life are two things: an insatiable curiosity in matters most commonly referred to as "science", and an easy and unabashed admission that one does not and can not know everything.

The simple corrolary is the admission that one could be wrong, the ease in saying so, and the total absense of that most juvenile and (ignorant) of pronouncements when debating, "it's the truth".
I truly admire this man and am currently reading the two books he claims "brought him around" to his present state in the matter.

By the way, much gratitude for your compilation of articles. You have no idea how interesting this subject is beyond the recreational all fire-no light "evolution-creationist" debate crowd.

In fact, the creation story in Genesis looks nothing like Big Bang cosmology—no matter how you spin it.

True; different order, etc.

In the Bible, the universe is a firmament and Earth is fixed and immovable (not to mention flat). In reality, the universe is expanding and Earth rotates about the sun.

Come now, that's a bit ridiculous. Genesis clearly uses "observational" language, describing things from the perspective of a person on earth. Does the writer really refuse, in everyday language, to refer to the sky as "up" or the ground as "down"? Does he refuse to use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset"?

In the Bible, Earth is created in the first “day,” before the sun, moon, and stars. In reality, Earth did not form until nine billion years after the Big Bang and after the sun and many other stars.

Talk about using your conclusion to prove itself...

"In fact, the creation story in Genesis looks nothing like Big Bang cosmology—no matter how you spin it. In the Bible, the universe is a firmament and Earth is fixed and immovable (not to mention flat). In reality, the universe is expanding and Earth rotates about the sun. In the Bible, Earth is created in the first 'day', before the sun, moon, and stars. In reality, Earth did not form until nine billion years after the Big Bang and after the sun and many other stars."

Statements like these are not intellectually honest, and the author knows it. If you claim to base your beliefs on science, then by all means present your scientific arguments. But please leave the interpretation of the Bible to those who actually believe it.

Doing this will allow the author to focus on avoiding stupid errors, as above. The Earth REVOLVES around the sun and ROTATES about its axis.

Now we understand how eyes evolved several times by natural selection.

No we don't. The studies that purport to show this are pure junk, wishful thinkings, and wild surmises by a few materialist true believers.

No one thinks the atomic model, which multiplied the entities we deal with in physics by a factor of 10^24, violated Occam’s razor.

I don't get this. "Atomic" model? In context, it would seem that the Standard Model is intended, but invoking that does not seem to support his argument, since it reduces multitudes of possible particles to a small group of quarks and leptons. Occam would have loved it.