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.
I don’t think half of the total number of buddhists would be an accurate characterization. I was thinking in terms of the 2 major divisions of buddhism. Mahayana is the larger, though, but I think it’s a bit lop-sided as in Christianity we have Catholicism being the larger.
Hmm, I should have been a little more specific. I meant that there are three major Abrahamic Religions. I know that when it comes to sheer numbers Jews are vastly outnumbered by the Christians and the Muslims.
I have noticed though that most Christians, especially the vocal ones on Free Republic don't think that other Christians are Christians, so if they are correct there are only a very few 'true' Christians.
Whether he is pro-Christian, or not, is irrelevant to the state of his soul. Is he a Christian, or not? That is the only question that matters for eternity.
Atheists claim that everything came about as a result of natural processes and faith is foolish and those processes not yet known will one day be revealed, which is something that, well, can be taken on faith.
Which means atheists self-define themselves as foolish.
I have found that many atheists are not so adamant against a God concept in general, but bristle against what historic and modern organized religions have done with theistic and philisophical issues.
That an avowed “atheist” has somehow found a God out their in the universe is not surprising to me but I would caution against high fiving over it...the God he found is no where near the God of Christians, Jews or Muslims.
“what damage? God is still here.”
imagine an atheist punk in school who attempts to badly intimidate a Christian kid after being told by the punk that Christians aren’t liked in the school. the Christian kid refuses to be intimidated, and backed into a corner he flattens the atheist. does the atheist punk get penalized or is it the Christian kid who gets expelled?
the damage is when the Christian kid is villified and the atheist punk is honored with victimhood.
He's keeping his mind open, and has not rejected the possibility.
Setting up a strawman are you? Atheists claim that nothing is revealed. It is the religious types that believe that. And that requires faith which as you agree, is foolish.
Which means atheists self-define themselves as foolish.
???? No I'm not. I'm being perfectly fair.
Atheists claim that nothing is revealed.
Which, of course, is a faith statement. But what they do is far more than that. They discount possibilities for arbitrary (and emotional) reasons, then offer explanations with evidence which requires very great faith to accept as conclusive.
And that requires faith which as you agree, is foolish.
You better go back and re-read what I wrote.
Most Westernized people are quite familiar with Christianity and to a lesser extent, Judaism, whereas they really wouldn't understand most arguments about the theological underpinnings of Islammunism. Besides, most of the target audience of such a book is already aware of the damage that Islam causes in this world, and clearly sees how it leads people to do irrational things, like slay others for the sake of hedonistic pleasure in a next world.
Perhaps there is much less moral equivalence between the way Christianity is practiced today with the way Islam controls the minds of its adherents, but several centuries ago, you'd have a tougher case to make. Go to Wikipedia, and look up "torture", you'll find a history of devices utilized by both Catholics and Protestants alike to deal with the other when their group had the upper hand. The only really positive thing to come out of it were groups of people who fled Europe to seek religious tolerance in the New World. One of the truly great developments of our Founding Fathers was the idea that people did not need to be imprisoned, impoverished, tortured or killed for having a different interpretation of an ancient book.
All religions involve belief in things that are not verifiable, and require a suspension of disbelief (a/k/a faith) to operate. Yes, some atheists work really, really hard at trying to convince people that there is no deity, but the majority of us simply don't believe in something that most believe in only because our culture has conditioned us to believe in it. We just don't make the connection between the pretty flower or the stars in the sky, and some power-grabbing religious leader dictating what we may consume or how we may seek recreation.
Can you show me where in the Bible Yeshua (Jesus) commanded the persecution and torture of heretics? I can show you in the Quran where Mohammed did--and that is why playing the moral equivalence game is a demonstration of ignorance.
Which, of course, is a faith statement. But what they do is far more than that. They discount possibilities for arbitrary (and emotional) reasons, then offer explanations with evidence which requires very great faith to accept as conclusive.
By your logic, not believing is believing : ) Faith is the antithesis of knowledge.
You better go back and re-read what I wrote.
I think that you are the one that is having a comprehension problem here. Admittedly I was a little tongue in cheek with my reply, but saying that having no faith has to be taken on faith is funny : )
Atheist don't know that nothing is revealed. They claim certain knowledge without having it.
but saying that having no faith has to be taken on faith is funny
Denying you have faith when you do is funny.
Jesus had to endure far worse, and yet, He is still with us.
It's the way that their followers have dealt with their fellow man that made Christianity and Islam morally equivalent (at least in their operation) five centuries ago. Western man outgrew the idea of persecution for the sake of religion, Islamics are still stuck there. The only reason President Bush decided not to annihilate them (my first choice) is because he believes that democratic institutions will eventually mellow them out of their bloodlust. Time will tell.
>> It’s the way that their followers have dealt with their fellow man that made Christianity and Islam morally equivalent <<
Read up on the history of the rise of Islam and Christianity please before making an ignorant blanket statement.
“Jesus had to endure far worse, and yet, He is still with us.”
He certainly is, but if tyranny goes unacknowledged it becomes a cancerous sore. so, consider the atheist punk to be one of the money changers in the temple.
If Christians (or theists) are such only because of their culture, what makes you special? Aren't you just an atheist because your particular upbringing and cultural milieu brought you to where you are? If we are only products of our environment, then we are all products of our environment.
Go to Wikipedia, and look up "torture", you'll find a history of devices utilized by both Catholics and Protestants alike to deal with the other when their group had the upper hand.
Go to Wikipedia and look up Stalin or Mao. Non-starter.
some power-grabbing religious leader dictating what we may consume or how we may seek recreation.
God doesn't dictate what you may consume or how you may seek pleasure. He just dictates which are right and which are wrong. You are free to consume and seek recreational pleasure at your leisure.
But my comparative religions professor swore it was so! Isn't that enough?
So you are now agreeing that you were wrong. I guess we are making some progress :)
Denying you have faith when you do is funny.
Having faith in a fairy tale is funny too.
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.