Interesting. Ping for later review.
He waited until he was 81 to read Thomas Aquinas?
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," [Flew] wrote.
Current inability to explain a phenomenon scientifically does not imply that phenomenon's scientific inexplicability.
Professor Flew finds himself unable to explain the appearance of the first reproducing organism, and so he elects to posit the existence of a non-physical universal intelligence that (somehow) produced that organism (and, presumably, everything else). Either Flew has an exaggerated sense of his own intelligence ("If I can't explain it, it can't be scientifically explained!") or else he's lost a step or three in his judgment of the soundness of arguments (or both).
Flew is 81 years old—it's probably not that easy for him to micturate, either.
(Okay, that last bit was a snark, but, hey, I'm bored, and if I don't say something like that every now and then, I'm gonna have to forfeit my log-in name.)
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Facing the inevitability of imminent death certainly has a tendency to focus one's attention.
The reality is we should all feel that intensity.
I wonder if he'll live long enough to change his "opinion" about no afterlife?
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
I wonder....... if some are scared of death at 81 or 8 and enbrace relgion
I wonder....... if some are scared of death at 81 or 8 and enbrace relgion
C.S. Lewis alert.
There has to be something wrong with Christian religious training in the UK to come up with this conclusion.
There is hope for you guys yet. :-)
Nor does the theory of evolution attempt to do so. It attempts to explain what happened after the origin of life.
Yeah, at 81, I'd start believing there is a God. He has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
The skeptics and beleivers in our audience need to understand that this is NOT a small change -- it is HUGE. One of the earliest logical forks in the road is the god/no god question; everything after that is dependent on it. If you move a flashlight an inch the light beam will shift huge distances out there somewhere. Flew just shifted his flashlight an inch.
It is amazing to me that so-called sophisitcated thinkers can even form the concept of a "minimal" god. What does that even mean? What is a "minimal" person? Does that mean we think we need a god to get it all moving but let's not let him be anything but a cosmic retard? Do these people not realize that once you open the door to a god of any type you have conceded that you must look for his own self-definition? That you no longer have any defense from the threat posed to reason by the concept of revelation? That what you must next do, logically, is sort among all the claims of competing revelations for the one that most answers the questions implied by the human experience?
A "minimal" god? Don't insult yourself. He either made, knows, and loves us or he is not. And if he loves us he entered our flesh, was crucified under Pontias Pilate, amd rose again on the third day.
Stop all the intellectual games and make an existential CHOICE, for pete's sake.
Poor guy has found the road but he's still a little lost.
When you call the number, nobody answers.
Here's a ping, and a similar link that will last longer:
Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God
By Richard N. Ostling
Associated Press
posted: 10 December 2004
09:31 am ET
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html