Posted on 01/11/2005 1:17:16 PM PST by jennyp
Update (January 2005)
Antony Flew has retracted one of his recent assertions. In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.
He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins because Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter," even though this is false (e.g. Richard Dawkins and L. D. Hurst, "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," Nature 360(6399): pp. 25-26, 5 November 1992) and hardly relevant: it was Flew's responsibility to check the state of the field (there are several books by actual protobiologists published in just the last five years), rather than wait for the chance possibility that one particular evolutionist would write on the subject. Now that he has done what he was supposed to do in the first place, he has retracted his false statement about the current state of protobiological science.
Flew also makes another admission: "I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics." Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims). As Flew admitted to me, and to Stuart Wavell of the London Times, and Duncan Crary of the Humanist Network News, he has not made any effort to check up on the current state of things in any relevant field (see "No Longer Atheist, Flew Stands by 'Presumption of Atheism'" and "In the Beginning There Was Something"). Flew has thus abandoned the very standards of inquiry that led the rest of us to atheism. It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible scholarship.
Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell. But in response to theists citing him in their favor, Flew strangely calls his "recent very modest defection from my previous unbelief" a "more radical form of unbelief," and implies that the concept of God might actually be self-refuting, for "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit," but, Flew says, "I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super radical controversy about the conceivability of the putative concept of God as a spirit." This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.
bump for publicity...
Well, it's now established that the author of this piece is an imbecile of the first water.
Many thanks. :)
read later
Sorry, it was an ad-hoc ping list. I'm really bad at keeping up with the "official" ping lists, so I don't know which ping-list keepers to ping. :-)
Hardly. If Flew really wrote what Carrier says he wrote, then Carrier is right to be frustrated with him. That is very shoddy scholarship for someone who's supposed to be so influential.
Strange as it is, I would think atheists would have no problem with Flew's defection. Yet they seem to be extremely upset about it and begin not to address his argument, but attack him personally as in the above posts.
The argument speaks for itself. We knew when he announced it that the origin of life isn't the insurmountable problem he seemed to think it was, and we knew that Gerald Schroeder was just another creationist who can't get the probability calculations right.
Gobucks has a point about keeping each other on the reservation. But, assuming atheists really believe they are correct, I remain surprised at how threatening an ex-atheist can be. After all, they tell us that belief in God is no different than belief in the tooth fairy. Yes, I know the real reason, but it isn't the one they give.It shouldn't be any different than belief in the tooth fairy. But people like me are a small minority who are despised by people like you who are in the majority.
We're not a persecuted minority, thank Jefferson, but feared & even despised, especially 'round here? Absolutely.
Well, name a single presentable theory.
Do you have a persecution complex or just a poor self image? I don't despise you. Because I don't follow your reasoning or think your caricaturization of Christians is misinformed does not mean I despise you. Your value as a human does not depend on your personal positions. Christianity teaches the intrinsic value of human life primarily because the imago Dei. Contrast that with the atheistic belief that we are only evolved animals. There is no basis for intrinsic value in that system. Peter Singer, for example, thinks we may be of less value than other forms of life.
Why should it bother Carrier as to what Flew thinks?
Because, as a wise woman recently said, "That is very shoddy scholarship for someone who's supposed to be so influential." That and the fact that Carrier has had actual correspondence with Flew, so there's a relationship there. Why shouldn't he be frustrated with him over this?
I assume you're trying to imply that Carrier is secretly frightened that (horrors!) God really does exist and now he has to stop participating in the daily drug-induced sex orgies that all us atheists must surely be engaging in behind your back? Hardly.
Of course there is. We're human beings, regardless of how we came to be human beings. That is the basis of all morality - the necessary conditions of a thriving life, given the facts of human nature.
I could just as easily ask you: Why is it so important to your self-image to know who your very distant ancestors were? Don't you have any self-worth on your own?
If I really, really didn't believe in God I would not care one whit what someone else did nor would I jump on him if he were unable to fully articulate a change in the reasoning. In fact, I suspect I'd be a little like Voltaire in seeking sincere believers for those I hire with the reasonable expectation that they would be more inclined to show up for work and less inclined to pilfer.
the daily drug-induced sex orgies that all us atheists must surely be engaging in behind your back?
Here. Read this.
What is human nature? Anyway, the necessary conditions of a thriving life, given the facts of pond scum nature are the basis of all morality? Or, the necessary conditions of a thriving life, given the facts of dolphin nature are the basis of all morality? etc.
Pond scum morality & dolphin morality look a lot different than human morality, I suspect. What kind of moral principles would be necessary for the development of the kind of pond scum society where pond scum can become the best pond scum they can be?
After 6000 years of human history, modern man is still denying human nature. Christianity has it right. Left to himself man tends to rebel against God. He is different from the animals in his ability to appreciate and create art, to be altruistic, to reason, to speak to choose. He is basically sinful, not basically good. Evolutionists see man as a machine, without free will, only a "higher" animal with an inexplicable religious drive, without special value, basically good.
Which view corresponds to reality?
Well, then it appears you agree with me that your statement concerning all morality was wrong. Further, if there is a morality involving pond scum and dolphins, it surely establishes that morality is based on a "point of view", and thus the bug-a-boo of the lack of an objective basis for morality stares the Objectivist in the face.
You're defending the God of the Nits again.
Let's see... you say our special ability is "to appreciate and create art, to be altruistic, to reason, to speak, and to choose." And from this you conclude that we are "basically sinful, not basically good"? Evolutionists see man as a machine, without free will, only a "higher" animal with an inexplicable religious drive, without special value, basically good.
Only creationists can see that strawman. Real evolutionists, at least those of us not on the far left, see man as a machine with free will. It's only creationists who can't get it through your heads that there is no contradiction there.
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.