Posted on 04/14/2010 9:44:46 AM PDT by Salvation
I also have no idea if this man really connected with any Christian denomination.
Perhaps others of you are more knowledgeable here.
He made it. Thanks be to God.
Ping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew#Biography
“In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Gary Habermas was published in the journal Philosophia Christi (published by the Evangelical Philosophical Society with the assistance of Biola University), with the title, Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew agreed to this title. According to the introduction, Flew informed Habermas in January 2004 that he had become a deist, and the interview took place shortly thereafter. Then the text was amended by both participants over the following months prior to publication. In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated (”While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.”). Flew stated that “the most impressive arguments for Gods existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries” and that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it”. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas’s question, “So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?”. He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with “the characteristics of power and also intelligence”, stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created “a lot of” evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ’s resurrection to be added into his latest book.”
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page6.cfm#8
Flew is particularly hostile to Islam, and says it is “best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism.” In a December 2004 interview he said: “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins.”
“When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: “I’m quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god”. When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with “Certainly not”, stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had converted to Christianity.”
http://www.mail-archive.com/media- href=”mailto:dakwah@yahoogroups.com”>dakwah@yahoogroups.com/msg01064.html
Mr Dawkins and other atheists, we’re praying for your conversion now. May you know Christ, and may you see the beatific vision with great joy.
While I realize Dawkins was trying to discredit creation (intelligent design), the book actually reinforced my belief in creation. I think the professor was hoping for minds full of mush, but I was older than most of the class and wasn't buying it. I argued with him and my poli-sci prof the most. I got good grades, even though we disagreed, because they were honest about it.
I hope God is merciful. Flew abandoned atheism in the end after decades of extolling it around the world.
I read the debate between him and Thomas B. Warren many years ago, and found it most interesting. As debates go, what was unusual about this one was Dr. Flew’s affirmative position that God does not exist - which means he was obligated to not only cast doubt on God’s existence (the agnostic position), but to go much further and prove the negative.
His arguments were well-constructed, but required irrational leaps. For whatever reasons, he was obviously willing to make those necessary leaps throughout most of his life. But I suspect that willingness faltered in his later years, and he submitted to the truth.
(Seems to me God has His ways of steering us in the right direction, while still leaving us free to rebel. That story is told again and again throughout the Bible.)
Sadly, Flew only got it HALF right before he died.
I'm not familiar with this gentleman so can not pronounce judgment, but I thought his conversion to Christianity was quite interesting
AFAIK, it was not a conversion to (any form of) Christianity. It was a conversion so simple theism. Simple theism is inadequate for salvation.
Yeah, I should get his book.
The trouble is, there is no rational basis for this presupposition. All epistemological systems must start with certain primary assumptions ("axioms") which can neither be proven or disproved by reason. It is these presuppositional foundations which dictate how one percieves reality (ie. metaphysics). The test is how well does any given epistemology explain human experience. I would argue that an empirical epistemology makes no sense of human experience. Only when we start out presupposing the truth of scripture does our reality make sense.
Which returns the problem: Which scripture?
The traditional cannon does nicely. 1800 years of experience can’t be sneezed at.
Time is immaterial. Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu scriptures go older, and you will have people subscribing to those precisely because it involves faith.
The Bhagavad-Gita.
|
Chapter XII |
|
Such parts of scripture are generally taken to be myth. For example it is scientifically inconceivable that the human race, all 6+ billion of its individuals, was borne out of incest between the progeny of a primary mating pair, and that one member of this pair lived 900+ years. DNA analyses, and modern fossil records overwhelmingly support the evidence for a world older than 5000-odd years.
Generally taken by who? I can conceive of it quite easily. And please explain rationally why scientific conceivability is an essential foundation for metaphysical reality rather than just being one aspect of a larger construct?
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.