He must be a John Kerry type of athiest...(was one before he wasn't)
IMHO, Cheers
Sharper Minds Daily
Posted on 12/13/2004 2:08:55 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
Goes to show that not all on FR is as it seems.
He's an agnostic, An Atheist is sure he "knows" there is no god, while an agnostic believes there could be.
Was an abc news report, not started on FR.
BTW welcome to FR.
He wishes he could say God definitely does not exist, but he can't.
I've often laid awake at night, fretting and sweating, dying to know the status of Antony Flew's theological development.
Something along those lines, I think. He points out something that many theists have talked about, i.e., that the Big Bang could be the handiwork of God. But, as a 'negative atheist' (or, if you will, agnostic), he comes down on the side of seeking a physical explanation for the Big Bang.
There's proof of supernatural forces, right there!
As I understand it, this is an up-dated version, responding to the recent spate of stories.
OK, so the old fool is still in darkness.
I wonder what Anthony Flew's favorite Rolling Stone song is? That question seems almost as important as whether or not he is a negative double secret athiest.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1400368,00.html
Antony Flew, 81, emeritus professor of philosophy at Reading University, whose arguments for atheism have influenced scholars around the world, has been converted to the view that some sort of deity created the universe.Flew, the son of a Methodist minister, is keen to repent. "As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done," he said yesterday.
But he is unlikely to proclaim his faith from a pulpit. He is still not a Christian and dismisses the conventional forms of divinity as "the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam". He also stands by his rejection of an afterlife.
Looks like the old guy will get his answer soon enough. ;)
Saturday was December 11, 2004; this piece was published Sunday, December 12, 2004. So I guess the answer to your question is, yes.
Aristotle believed that the world always existed and the Unmoved Mover (i.e. God) always existed and that the UM did nothing much other than organize the preexisting world.
Spinoza believed that the world always existed and that the world and everything in it was God (thoroughgoing pantheism), eliminating Aristotle's distinction.
Both of these theologies dodge the obvious question: where does the world come from if God was not its author?
That seems likely, unless he follows in the footsteps of the long-lived Bertrand Russell.
I do not believe this re-cantation. It is a restatement of an old position and DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES in last week's story.
Last week's story dealt with the origin of life and *not* with the big bang.
Flew is not that shoddy!
You'll notice that he also takes the Aristotle/Spinoza dodge.Aristotle believed that the world always existed and the Unmoved Mover (i.e. God) always existed and that the UM did nothing much other than organize the preexisting world.
Spinoza believed that the world always existed and that the world and everything in it was God (thoroughgoing pantheism), eliminating Aristotle's distinction.
Both of these theologies dodge the obvious question: where does the world come from if God was not its author?
Your last question seems to ignore the points you made earlier about the world having always existed. If the world (i.e., physical being of some sort) has always existed, the question, 'Where does the world come from?', is already answered.
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.