Atheist's turn toward God was a 4-year process, friend says

Atheist's turn toward God was a 4-year process, friend says Dec 22, 2004 By David Roach

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Christian apologist Gary Habermas had just finished debating noted British atheist Antony Flew about the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The two friends rode an elevator together as they left the Californian university where the debate was held in January 2002. As Habermas exited the elevator, he extended his hand through the open door. "Tony," he said, "this is it for now. I enjoyed talking with you. When you become a Christian, I want to be the first one to know."

Most observers of the debate never thought that Flew would take steps toward Christianity. The former professor at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain had argued against the existence of God for more than 50 years, publishing such books as "Atheistic Humanism" and "Darwinian Evolution."

But in December 2004 the unexpected happened when Flew took a step toward Christianity, announcing that scientific evidence led him to a belief in God.

Habermas, chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., had known that Flew was reconsidering his position since the fall of 2000 when Flew sent Habermas a letter in which the atheist acknowledged the strength of arguments for theism and Christianity.

"In September 2000, that's about the earliest indication that I had that he was changing," Habermas said in an interview with Baptist Press. "He wrote me a long letter, quite an incredible letter, where at several points he conceded the evidence for [theism and Christianity]."

When Habermas received the letter, he knew something was happening in Flew's life.

"I distinctly remember reading that letter when it came in the mail and thinking, 'Wow, something huge is happening with this guy,'" Habermas said.

Over a period of three years the two scholars corresponded about God. By January 2003 Flew began considering arguments from the "intelligent design" movement and was on the verge of belief in God.

Intelligent design is a theory arguing that some features of the natural world are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause rather than naturalistic evolution.

"He told me he was really rethinking theism and had corresponded with [naturalistic scientist Richard] Dawkins and was putting the ID arguments up against what Dawkins was saying and trying to compare the arguments," Habermas said. "And he was going back and forth as to whether he should be a theist or not."

By early 2004, Flew completed his transition to theism and indicated his change of mind to Habermas in a telephone conversation.

When media reports revealed Flew's belief in God in December 2004, some skeptics argued that the former atheist had changed his mind suddenly. But Habermas said such allegations are clearly incorrect in light of the four-year dialogue he had with Flew.

"The implications that he's just recently arrived at theism ... and that he hasn't had time to think through this aren't correct," Habermas said. "The first sign that I've seen of him changing goes back to the fall of 2000. So he's been thinking about these things for four years."

Flew currently holds a position known as deism -- the belief that God created the universe but is not actively involved in people's lives today, Habermas said. Because deism is traditionally a "tenuous" position, Flew could move closer to traditional Christianity in the days ahead, he said.

"Deism is a very tenuous position, and deistic belief is a short-lived movement in the history of philosophy over the last few centuries," Habermas said. "One reason deism is a troubled position is that it usually moves one way or the other."

Flew could revert back to atheism, Habermas noted. "Still, he has made a number of statements to me indicating that he is open, even to revelation," Habermas said.

"Three weeks ago I received a letter from him where he said that he was rereading my arguments for the resurrection and was very impressed with them,'" he said.

Despite his interest in the resurrection, however, Flew remains far from belief in Christianity, Habermas said.

"He's told me on many occasions that he was impressed with the arguments for the resurrection ... and he says it's the best miracle claim in the history of religions," Habermas recounted. "So he's impressed with them. Enough to believe? I don't think so, certainly not right now."

The dialogue with Flew highlights the need for Christians to engage non-believers in meaningful, caring friendships, Habermas said. Christian scholars in particular should bear in mind the need to build relationships with non-believing scholars, he said.

There are "benefits of carrying on a genuine friendship with people who do not agree with you on things," Habermas said. "I mean a genuine friendship where you're there for them in season and out of season. You're there for them when they're having bad days. You can tell them things that are on your mind. ... It's not connected to whether the people convert or not."

Christians should rejoice that Flew has adopted a belief in God but remember that mere belief in God falls short of the belief in Jesus Christ that Scripture requires for eternal life, Habermas said.

"His deism provides no relief for dying because he doesn't believe in life after death," he said. "It's not ... an 81-year-old who is embracing God so that he can come out on the good side when he dies. If you said that to him, he would say, 'I'm just going where the evidence leads.'"

An interview conducted by Habermas exploring Flew's conversion to belief in God will be published in the winter 2004 issue of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

I was one of those nurses with a 6th sense for trouble.

The number of times I walked out of report and knew immediately that I had to check on someone even though it was out of sync with my organizational routine were to many to count.

I'm not going to say, I saved their lives because nothing like that is ever a singular moment. But I arrived at a pivotal moment where there was still the opportunity to make the difference between life and death.

It was just a sense that I needed to be with someone.

Good point, and good catch. I'm with you. But then, it's easy to concede since these are not MY words, but the words of a literalist looking at Schroeder's work. :) I got that from answersingenesis.org. That was what I intended to show with that posting--that literalists would have an easy time demonstrating that Schroeder was not hewing to their literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not at all excited about the notion of reconciling current scientific theories with the Bible, because I think either you believe in the Bible as the Word of God, or you don't. Molding it to fit today's scientific theory is essentially draining the book of its divinity from a literal standpoint. If the Book says God created the Earth and all its wonders in 6 days, well, if you believe the Book is the literal word of God, it should have happened in 6 days, not some 'but-a-day-to-God-is-infinite' wordtwisting b.s.

You said -- "That Jesus wants us to spread the Word has naught to do with spreading the news that Flew is a theist."

I would say that it has everything to do with it, because the person who was talking to this guy is a Christian who is spreading that very "news" of the Gospel.

The fact that the other person (who received that Good News of the Gospel) is not there yet, doesn't mean that what this proclaimer of the Gospel has done is useless either to this hearer -- or -- to other hearers who may be doing that very same thing (and/or talking to others).

The fact that you don't want anyone to hear about those who proclaim the Gospel and what happens when they proclaim the Gospel is simply a statement on the condition of your own heart.

Those who are of Christ are happy to hear about the proclamation of the Gospel being accomplished, whether it has fully accomplished what it should, or whether more is needed for the person to consider his own salvation.

Even the angels in Heaven rejoice over these things...

      Luke 15:7-

      7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy
        in heaven over one sinner who repents than over
        ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.

      8 "Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she
        loses one coin, does not light a lamp, sweep the
        house, and search carefully until she finds it?

      9 And when she has found it, she calls her friends
        and neighbors together, saying, 'Rejoice with me,
        for I have found the piece which I lost!'

     10 Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the
        presence of the angels of God over one sinner
        who repents."

Proclaim it far and wide -- and rejoice (in like manner as the angels in Heaven)...

Regards,

Star Traveler

Molding it to fit today's scientific theory is essentially draining the book of its divinity from a literal standpoint

I pondered this for some time and concluded that the bible is designed to speak to people about the who, what, where, why of God. It needs to be relevant to every age because its purpose is salvation not science. Every age will have its own "science" regarding origins and every age will be wrong in part and right in part. Therefore, Genesis 1 and 2 needed to be written so that it was true and at the same time somewhat fuzzy on the details so that each age would not use its own limited understanding as a basis for rejecting it.

Personally, I have endeavored to read Genesis literally and figuratively while attempting to reconcile it to our current understanding of space and time. Some things fit, some don't. But I did find that reading it literally, going back to the Hebrew and most importantly, not using imposing later definitions of words on the text and treating each word as brand new the first time its used is very difficult and doesn't lead to the current "literal" understanding nor does it lead to the current science. In fact, one of my literal readings leads to the conclusion that we have been in the 6th day since man has been on earth and will not leave the 6th day until Jesus's work is done.

For example, according to Dr. Schroeder, since the universe started in such a very tiny volume, the first twenty-four hour day was a time period of 8 billion years. As the universe continued to expand, the second day was only 4 billion years, the third day was 2 billion years, the fourth day was 1 billion years, the fifth day was 1/2 billion years and the sixth day was 1/4 billion years for a grand total of 15 3/4 billion years. He does not rest this choice of variable ‘day’ lengths on any discernible scientific reasoning, nor does he offer any Biblical basis for such a division. We are merely supposed to accept his re-definition of the word ‘day’ and ignore all the Biblical evidence (such as Genesis 1:5 and Exodus 20:8–11) that each Creation day was essentially the same length of time as an ordinary day of the week today.

Moreover, Dr. Schroeder’s arbitrary numbers are not consistent with each other. He chooses to divide ’the 15 billion years by the degree of expansion of the universe, which he defines as a million million (1,000,000,000,000), and then multiplying that by 365 for the number of days in a year. He states that the answer is approximately 6, proving his theory, which states that we are in the afternoon of the sixth day. However, the actual answer is 5.475, meaning that we have not yet reached the sixth day. Therefore, according to his theory, animals and humans should not be around.

Wrong, wrong, wrong ,wrong.

This analysis of Schroeders work has been posted by somebody who admittedly has not read Schroeders work.

Is it any wonder that he misstates Schroeders work?

"The fact that you don't want anyone to hear about those who proclaim the Gospel and what happens when they proclaim the Gospel is simply a statement on the condition of your own heart."

What are you TALKING about? I just said I don't see the point of celebrity endorsements in what is a personal decision, and you twist that to mean somehow I'm against all evangelism? One more straw man of many.

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.