Posted on 12/10/2004 7:43:39 PM PST by Lorianne
listen folks I don't think you are being at all fair about this...this is a significant development.
i have followed anthony flew's work for years. he is sort of enigmatic in that while he has been a very vocal and very rigorous atheist, he has also been more or less an economic libertarian. he has never embraced socialism. just the opposite. he has almost always been on our side.
i always thought that was interesting. i would think, "well he's half right." i guess from his perspective, i think he must have thought that both religion and socialism are just purely wishful thinking based on feelings, not rigorous thought and investigation.
now, interestingly, the rigor of his thought has led him to doubt his atheism. i think this is significant. and i think we should be grateful that he has the guts and humility after years of being vocal and atheist, to say that maybe he was wrong. how many intellectuals can do that?
my admiration for him has gone up. i think he will come to know the one true triune God before he dies.
Worked for Mortimer Adler, Malcolm Muggeridge, CS Lewis...many many others....
Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, who just recently passed away, never could believe that life sprang from the earth ex nihilo. The likelihood of this event was so statistically unlikely as to be utterly preposterous. Yet he could never admit the possibility of divine intervention. So he came up with his notion of "directed panspermia", that is, that the earth had to have been seeded by alien beings in the remote past. And this guy had a Nobel Prize in biology! It takes an awful lot of education to be this eccentric.
It is the fatal conceit of modern man to deny God under any and all circumstances. This conceit lies at the heart of all that is wrong with our world today.
Who cares what this idiot thinks?
After 81 years he still hasn't figured it out?
Well from what I've gathered the two are not related: evolutionary theory and the origins of life.
The Nova story is a fairy tale of soupy chemical mixtures combining in just the right fashion to form living organisms, which then fed on bacteria.
Ho ho ho! Wait a minute you living organisms, where'd you get the bacteria?
OK the origin of life arguments are fairy tales and Dr. Flew acknowledges that. That acknowledgment doesn't mean he "believes in God". He certainly doesn't give testimony to knowing the Judeo-Christain God.
He's just saying that there is a possibility, a likely probability that such an intelligence exists.
So, no news here, truthfully, unless I'm missing something.
Well from what I've gathered the two are not related: evolutionary theory and the origins of life.
The Nova story is a fairy tale of soupy chemical mixtures combining in just the right fashion to form living organisms, which then fed on bacteria.
Ho ho ho! Wait a minute you living organisms, where'd you get the bacteria?
OK the origin of life arguments are fairy tales and Dr. Flew acknowledges that. That acknowledgment doesn't mean he "believes in God". He certainly doesn't give testimony to knowing the Judeo-Christain God.
He's just saying that there is a possibility, a likely probability that such an intelligence exists.
So, no news here, truthfully, unless I'm missing something.
Doah! finally I did it. sorry
We aren't all 81, but we all face mortality.
The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis addresses the other issues in your post, if you're interested. It's a complex problem.
Anthony Flew is one of the most influential atheists of the past 50 years. I read some of his work in college when I was an agnostic.
In 2001, Flew was still claiming to be an atheist.
Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist! by Antony Flew
Either the Guardian has it wrong, or something's changed for Flew.
You would need to know the fulfillment of the plan to determine whether or not it were malevolent. Evil lacks nature, and is the result of creatures rebelling against the "Planner" with their freewill - given to them by their Creator.
In certain christian mythos heaven is the "beatific vision" the permission to look upon the face of god for all eternity. Maybe it's just me, but if a supreme being needs that kind of fawning from its' flawed finite creations there's a serious ego issue at play.
The Beatific Vision - "to make blessed" - is the gift of Grace which allows a finite creature of God to share directly for all eternity (which God is) in His Glory. The final summation of "The Plan". The Supreme Being doesn't need this "fawning" from His creatures, rather He Wills to bestow this supernatural happiness, namely Himself, on those who freely choose it/Him. Indeed, from a Christian perspective, the central mystery of God that He has revealed to us about Himself is that God is an Infinite Being of three Divine Persons absolutely united together in communion so as to share completely in One Nature.
As I see it hell must have a far more interesting group of people.
That's the problem. There are no groups of people in hell. It is a final state of being, chosen through fault of the individuals who may end there, of complete isolation and loneliness.
<< Second: if this reality is all part of a completely thought out plan, then the malevolent nature of the mind that came up this is jaw droppingly frightening.
... As I see it hell must have a far more interesting group of people. >>
Maybe, just maybe, God created a perfect system and the malevolence you see and complain about comes from your own mind.
Just because you don't want something to exist, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You deny the power of creation but you claim to have the power of destruction - by wishing away what you can't accept.
"If I'm wrong" - you say - so you are still buying into the hypothesis.
It's not a matter of guessing correctly based on logic. As you see, logic leads nowhere. Neither does belief.
Just think of the most miserable depressed tortured lost hopeless and insane people you know on this earth. Are they "interesting"?
So would you believe hell in hell is better than hell on earth?
Senility must have set in.
<< listen folks I don't think you are being at all fair about this...this is a significant development. ... i have followed anthony flew's work for years. >>
So if a regular person says something foolish it's Ok to criticize. But if a distinguished and pedigreed professor says the same thing - he should be admired?
Well it's a first step. Baby step. But a step towards accepting the obvious.
Atheist finds 'God' after 50 years
So where was he?
Well someone had to say it.
<< So we must both wait for the adjudication of our deaths for resolution. >>
Sorry, pal. I'm not waiting.
And I'm especially not waiting for you.
This is not an argument between people. That's an old trick: If I can't convince you then I lose.
No, it's a question about what your life is about. That's for you to answer, no one else.
And not by argument.
i think he will come to know the one true triune God before he dies
From your lips to God's ear.
ditto that
There has been several posts about this. It looks like something has changed.
i don't think it's foolish if a regular atheist becomes a theist....nor do i think it's insignificant when a professional atheist changes his mind
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.