Posted on 11/19/2007 6:06:14 AM PST by Kaslin
Imagine if one of the world's leading Christians--say C.S. Lewis a generation ago, or Billy Graham now--were to reject his religious beliefs and become a atheist. It would be big news! The New York Times would be all over it, for sure, and the question would be why a man who has devoted his life to God would now turn against Him? In sum, the focus would be on what were the reasons for the conversion and on what's so bad about Christianity.
Contrast this with the New York Times' approach to the conversion of philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew has been, for the past half-century, the world's leading advocate of atheism. His works such as Theology and Falsification and The Presumption of Atheism were considered classics of theist thought. No one has so relentlessly espoused the atheist cause, and no one has been more anthologized and eulogized by the atheist community. Other twentieth-century philosophers, such as Martin Heidegger and Bertrand Russell, were unbelievers but they did not make atheism central to their philosophical work as did Flew. Flew's atheism long precedes that of latecomers like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.
Now, in his early eighties, Flew has rejected atheism and said he believes that God exists. He does not espouse the Christian God, but calls himself a Deist. He says he has a lifelong commitment to following the evidence where it leads, and that new advances in the sciences have shown him that materialism and Darwinism simply cannot account for the world as it is and life as it is. Examining the fine-tuning of the universe and the mind-boggling complexity of the cell (a compexity that evolution presumes but cannot explain), Flew now believes that the design of the universe requires a designer. He gives his reasons in a new book There Is a God which is co-authored with Roy Abraham Varghese.
In the book, Flew uses simple analogies to expose atheist illogic. For instance, leading atheists seek to prove that the mind is no more than the brain. If the brain is destroyed, they say, we can't use our minds. Therefore there is nothing to minds excerpt circuits and neurons. Flew gives the example of a child raised on a remote island who finds a satellite phone. Voices come out of the machine. The child recognizes these voices as human and is thrilled by the discovery that she has found a way to interact with other humans. Perhaps there is life outside the island!
Then the elders of the tribe (if I may embellish Flew's account, let's call them Big Chief Dawkins, Grand Pooh Bah Dennett, and Witch Doctor Pinker) scorn the child and say, "Look, when we damage the instrument, the voices stop. So they're obviously nothing more than sounds produced by the unique combination of metals and circuit boards. Forget about learning about other humans. From all the evidence we have, we are the only living creatures on earth. So go back to making sandcastles." Who are the real dummies here?
When a major figure like Flew switches sides, the New York TImes goes into mafia-style intellectual hit mode. They selected Mark Oppenheimer of Yale, who visited Flew in England and wrote a long article in the November 4, 2007 New York Times Magazine suggesting that Flew converted because he is, well, senile. The basic idea is that Flew has lost his mind and can't remember anything, and when Christian apologists like Varghese were nice to him Flew basically surrendered to them and let them write his book.
The only evidence that Flew has lost his mind is that he's 84 years old. A man of 84 naturally loses some of his memory, especially for names, but this does not mean he has lost his marbles. Flew's own writings of the past few years are all entirely coherent and employ sophisticated philosophical vocabulary. While Flew seems to have asked his collaborator Varghese to write a draft of his life story, it was Flew who reviewed and approved the final contents. There is nothing in the Times' article that shows Flew to be incapable of a reasoned change of mind and heart.
I realize that atheists--including those at the New York Times--are embarassed at having to surrender one of their most stalwart champions to theism. Maybe they too should consider following the evidence where it leads? Too closed-minded to consider Flew's arguments, these fellows would much rather belittle the intellectual capacity of the man they once revered. Hell hath no fury like an atheist scorned.
Actually, among the college professor, philosophy PhD types, Flew was recognized as the world’s foremost champion of a-theistic philosophy for decades.
Comparing Madeline Murray O’Hare to Anthony Flew is something like comparing Billy Graham to Alvin Plantinga.
O’Hare put a lot of Flew’s ideas out in the public forum; Flew was really an academic type, behind the scenes guy for most of his career.
Actually, there are 2 major branches of buddhism, and yes, one of them does place a lot of stock in those little bot-bellied idols.
Islam does not use the same book as I do.
Nor do I see atheism attacking it. See #20
Well, it’s not like he started off to Damascus to drag Christians to their deaths.
I know, I’m a glutton for punishment but I’m going to spend Thanksgiving with the family, militant atheist. I actually find him amusing most times because he has his anti-theology all mixed up.
He doesn’t believe in God but blames Him for a lot of things. So when he’s expounding on the non-existence of God I just say “whatever” and when he’s blaming God for bad things I just calmly say, “but I thought there was no God”. He usually shuts up then and we have a nice time.
There are abour 800 million more Christians than Moslems and Jews combined.
One should never combine Muslims and Jews.
Perhaps you missed Richard Dawkins' comment about "testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world" who are so desperate they are willing to execute a suicide mission for the promise of "72 private virgins" in the next life.
I'll admit that his writings are far more centered on Judeo-Christian tradition than on Islam, but his audience has that as their cultural background. You know very good and well that any Arabic translation of his works would get fatwas issued at lightning speed, and anybody carrying such a book in Islammunist lands would be subjected to even worse treatment than somebody carrying a Bible.
That's probably what would have happened in Europe five hundred years ago if his book had been written then.
Yeah - and it is not like he has started off to Rome evalislising all along the way (and writing parts of the Gospel too)...
Buddhism is a non-theistic “religion” so it would be hard for atheists to attack it.
Atheism always struck me as a waste of time.
Well, you certainly cannot find God if you don’t believe that God exists. For a former atheist to come to believe there is a supreme being responsible for creating all of this is huge. It rejects creation without a creator. It means recognizing that an incredibly powerful being exists that may have an impact on your life.
If he truly does keep looking at the evidence and hunting for the truth, he will find God. But you’re not going to look for God if you don’t think God exists. That’s why it’s such an important 180 on this guy’s part. He is open to the idea of God, that God exists, and that God can be found.
So you would call yourself Abuddhist? LOL So you are saying that half the Buddhists think that Buddha is God?
Islam does not use the same book as I do.
So what religion are you if you don't use the Old Testament?
Nor do I see atheism attacking it.
You haven't seen atheists attacking the God of the Old Testament? I thought mocking Noah, Joshua and the Creationists was part and parcel of it.
Atheists claim that none of the religions are true. Despater, Zeus, Allah, Elohim, etc. are all creations of mans imagination. You just notice when we attack Christ, because the truth hurts.
It has been my experience that atheists (at least the Western variety) attack Christianity while finding voodoo, Hinduism, animism and other variants of religion "interesting." They save their real vitriol for Jesus and God (YHVH) and adherents thereto.
I just finished Mr. Flews’ book last night and it was very good. It made me feel very sorry for the kids being force fed atheism at the Universities. They will never get exposed the a guy like this or C.S. Lewis just their lefty professors.
Yeah. Have you ever noticed that whenever atheists get around to making some comment about Islam, it’s always surrounded by twenty+ attacks on Christianity based on a non-existent moral equivalence between the two?
Oops, hit the wrong “reply” button. The above was meant for hunter112.
Finally, the Mahayanists completed the conversion of Buddhism from a philosophy to religion. Therevada Buddhism holds that Buddha was a historical person who, on his death, ceased to exist. There were, however, strong tendencies for Buddhists to worship Buddha as a god of some sort; these tendencies probably began as early as Buddha's lifetime. The Mahayanists developed a theology of Buddha called the doctrine of "The Three Bodies," or Trikaya. The Buddha was not a human being, as he was in Theravada Buddhism, but the manifestation of a universal, spiritual being. This being had three bodies. When it occupied the earth in the form of Siddhartha Gautama, it took on the Body of Magical Transformation (nirmanakaya ). This Body of Magical Transformation was an emanation of the Body of Bliss (sambhogakaya ), which occupies the heavens in the form of a ruling and governing god of the universe. There are many forms of the Body of Bliss, but the one that rules over our world is Amithaba who lives in a paradise in the western heavens called Sukhavati, or "Land of Pure Bliss." Finally, the Body of Bliss is an emanation of the Body of Essence (dharmakaya ), which is the principle underlying the whole of the universe. This Body of Essence, the principle and rule of the universe, became synonymous with Nirvana . It was a kind of universal soul, and Nirvana became the transcendent joining with this universal soul.http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/MAHAYANA.HTM
The people have those fat-bellied buddhas for a reason.
Islam does not view the old testament as an inspired book. They simply don’t. There are a few pieces of pieces of it they like. I’m sure they have great regard for: Israel is the nation of God.
>>It seems as people get closer to death - they think more of God. Wonder what he will do to “undo” the 60 years of damage he ha inflicted on those that believe in God...(especially Christians).<<
Sounds kinda like the apostle Paul. I wonder if there is a limit. ;)
Read the book. He does not say the Christian God in not real. He is very pro-Chrisian God as he says He is the best to fit the things that the Mind behind the Universe must be.
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.