Famous Athiest Now Believes In God

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Qsaint

Cancelled
Joined
May 6, 2004
Posts
15,460
Likes
165
Location
Brisvegas
AFL Club
St Kilda
#2
Seven said:
A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Discuss.
'At age 81' when most people have a bet each way on the afterlife as life comes to an end.

.................


"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," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."


So no christian god

.........................................

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

Scientific proof? You got to be kidding me.

In conclusion he is a Nutter
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Posts
2,336
Likes
2,305
Location
bentleigh
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
hawthorn
#4
When Bob Hawke became PM in 1983 he softened his former athiesm by declaring himself an "Agnostic". Tandberg did a great cartoon at the time that showed Hawke saying "I'm agnostic" to which one onlooker says to another "He's not sure whether he is God or not". So true.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#5
JeffDunne said:
He's about to die. :rolleyes:

As QSaint says, this aint science. He's a philosophy professor for christ sake. :D
Didnt even need to read the article to know he was old and getting close.

That will be my each way bet as well... The bible says I am allowed to convert at anytime and I hope my car rolls enough times for me to be able to convert
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
#6
andrew coombs said:
When Bob Hawke became PM in 1983 he softened his former athiesm by declaring himself an "Agnostic". Tandberg did a great cartoon at the time that showed Hawke saying "I'm agnostic" to which one onlooker says to another "He's not sure whether he is God or not". So true.
:D Brilliant!
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#7
PerthCrow said:
Didnt even need to read the article to know he was old and getting close.

That will be my each way bet as well... The bible says I am allowed to convert at anytime and I hope my car rolls enough times for me to be able to convert
You can convert at any time PerthCrow but I wonder if that is easier said than done. Remember you cannot fool God, He knows what is in your heart, He knows all your thoughts, motives and intentions. If you do not believe now, what makes you think you will suddenly believe on your death bed? Professing with your mouth you have accepted Christ is meaningless if you have not accepted Him in your heart. Also God knows what you are planning to do and He will not let you cheat your way out of hell.

As for this old codger, it doesn't matter whether he has finally noticed God is reaching out to him as he still turns his back on God and rejects His offer of salvation. He is hell bound and I doubt after 81 years anything will change his ways, although with God anything is possible.
 

otaku

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Posts
9,307
Likes
1
Location
48' 03"N 13' 51"E
#8
Birdy said:
You can convert at any time PerthCrow but I wonder if that is easier said than done. Remember you cannot fool God, He knows what is in your heart, He knows all your thoughts, motives and intentions. If you do not believe now, what makes you think you will suddenly believe on your death bed? Professing with your mouth you have accepted Christ is meaningless if you have not accepted Him in your heart. Also God knows what you are planning to do and He will not let you cheat your way out of hell.

As for this old codger, it doesn't matter whether he has finally noticed God is reaching out to him as he still turns his back on God and rejects His offer of salvation. He is hell bound and I doubt after 81 years anything will change his ways, although with God anything is possible.
Arn't religious zealots funny?
 

Freo Big Fella

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Posts
10,731
Likes
5,401
Location
The great wide north
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
WA, Australia
#9
Birdy said:
You can convert at any time PerthCrow but I wonder if that is easier said than done. Remember you cannot fool God, He knows what is in your heart, He knows all your thoughts, motives and intentions. If you do not believe now, what makes you think you will suddenly believe on your death bed? Professing with your mouth you have accepted Christ is meaningless if you have not accepted Him in your heart. Also God knows what you are planning to do and He will not let you cheat your way out of hell.

As for this old codger, it doesn't matter whether he has finally noticed God is reaching out to him as he still turns his back on God and rejects His offer of salvation. He is hell bound and I doubt after 81 years anything will change his ways, although with God anything is possible.
Aren't you late for a Cross Burning or something?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mulhollanddrive

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
3,618
Likes
6
Location
home
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#13
Believing about God is all about reality vs benefit, if you can benefit from it enough it doesnt matter what the truth is. The man is 81 he's realised he cant prove God doesnt exist, so what the hell hes dying soon may as well have some hope in his final years. Same goes for people in jail who convert.
 

lenny&carl

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Posts
4,038
Likes
629
Location
#1 Daft Prick
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#15
Well that link is stuffed so i thought i might post the whole thing. One or two of you will read it and see you were being rather presumptuous...

--------------------------

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 ? A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"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," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.
 

lenny&carl

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Posts
4,038
Likes
629
Location
#1 Daft Prick
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#16
JeffDunne said:
As QSaint says, this aint science. He's a philosophy professor for christ sake. :D
Top notch Philosophers understand science a lot better & deeper than scientists ever do. It's like comparing Pagan to Fevola.
 

Qsaint

Cancelled
Joined
May 6, 2004
Posts
15,460
Likes
165
Location
Brisvegas
AFL Club
St Kilda
#20
lenny&carl said:
Well that link is stuffed so i thought i might post the whole thing. One or two of you will read it and see you were being rather presumptuous...

--------------------------



Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.



Nothing like a beaten creationist.

Genetics and the study of the human Genome make Darwin's On
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
one of the greatest if not the greatest scientific works of all time. Out of all things this nutter wanted to bring up, and no I'm not being presumptuous, Genetics was the last thing you would to bring up. Darwin, the great devil of religious fanatics, has finally had his theories proved right and claptrap like creationism, proved again wrong. Very simplisticaly we are the superhumans of our time, we are stronger faster and more intelligent than our ancestors, if we need to have children who will be 'selected' to adapt to our ever changing environment, we need to die. Reason for life, Reason for Death, No Reason for God.



Intelligent Design Theorists are Neo Creationists, whose funding is all from Guess who? Almost 100% from religious nutters. Read the whole article if you want to, this is only about a third of it, basically the author just continues to make the Intelligent Design theorists look like fools.Massimo Pigliucci is associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology a tthe University of Tennessee

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html

Design Yes, Intelligent No
A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism




The claims by Behe, Dembski, and other "intelligent design" creationists that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is all about.
Massimo Pigliucci



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new brand of creationism has appeared on the scene in the last few years. The so-called neocreationists largely do not believe in a young Earth or in a too literal interpretation of the Bible. While still mostly propelled by a religious agenda and financed by mainly Christian sources such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute, the intellectual challenge posed by neocreationism is sophisticated enough to require detailed consideration (see Edis 2001; Roche 2001).

Among the chief exponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory, as this new brand of creationism is called, is William Dembski, a mathematical philosopher and author of The Design Inference (1998a). In that book he attempts to show that there must be an intelligent designer behind natural phenomena such as evolution and the very origin of the universe (see Pigliucci 2000 for a detailed critique). Dembki's (1998b) argument is that modern science ever since Francis Bacon has illicitly dropped two of Aristotle's famous four types of causes from consideration altogether, thereby unnecessarily restricting its own explanatory power. Science is thus incomplete, and intelligent design theory will rectify this sorry state of affairs, if only close-minded evolutionists would allow Dembski and company to do the job.

Aristotle's Four Causes in Science

Aristotle identified material causes, what something is made of; formal causes, the structure of the thing or phenomenon; efficient causes, the immediate activity producing a phenomenon or object; and final causes, the purpose of whatever object we are investigating. For example, let's say we want to investigate the "causes" of the Brooklyn Bridge. Its material cause would be encompassed by a description of the physical materials that went into its construction. The formal cause is the fact that it is a bridge across a stretch of water, and not either a random assembly of pieces or another kind of orderly structure (such as a skyscraper). The efficient causes were the blueprints drawn by engineers and the labor of men and machines that actually assembled the physical materials and put them into place. The final cause of the Brooklyn Bridge was the necessity for people to walk and ride between two landmasses without getting wet.
Dembski maintains that Bacon and his followers did away with both formal and final causes (the so-called teleonomic causes, because they answer the question of why something is) in order to free science from philosophical speculation and ground it firmly into empirically verifiable statements. That may be so, but things certainly changed with the work of Charles Darwin (1859). Darwin was addressing a complex scientific question in an unprecedented fashion: he recognized that living organisms are clearly designed in order to survive and reproduce in the world they inhabit; yet, as a scientist, he worked within the framework of naturalistic explanations of such design. Darwin found the answer in his well-known theory of natural selection. Natural selection, combined with the basic process of mutation, makes design possible in nature without recourse to a supernatural explanation because selection is definitely nonrandom, and therefore has "creative" (albeit nonconscious) power. Creationists usually do not understand this point and think that selection can only eliminate the less fit; but Darwin's powerful insight was that selection is also a cumulative process-analogous to a ratchet-which can build things over time, as long as the intermediate steps are also advantageous.

Darwin made it possible to put all four Aristotelian causes back into science. For example, if we were to ask what are the causes of a tiger's teeth within a Darwinian framework, we would answer in the following manner. The material cause is provided by the biological materials that make up the teeth; the formal cause is the genetic and developmental machinery that distinguishes a tiger's teeth from any other kind of biological structure; the efficient cause is natural selection promoting some genetic variants of the tiger's ancestor over their competitors; and the final cause is provided by the fact that having teeth structured in a certain way makes it easier for a tiger to procure its prey and therefore to survive and reproduce-the only "goals" of every living being.

Therefore, design is very much a part of modern science, at least whenever there is a need to explain an apparently designed structure (such as a living organism). All four Aristotelian causes are fully reinstated within the realm of scientific investigation, and science is not maimed by the disregard of some of the causes acting in the world. What then is left of the argument of Dembski and of other proponents of ID? They, like William Paley (1831) well before them, make the mistake of confusing natural design and intelligent design by rejecting the possibility of the former and concluding that any design must by definition be intelligent.

One is left with the lingering feeling that Dembski is being disingenuous about ancient philosophy. It is quite clear, for example, that Aristotle himself never meant his teleonomic causes to imply intelligent design in nature (Cohen 2000). His mentor, Plato (in Timaeus), had already concluded that the designer of the universe could not be an omnipotent god, but at most what he called a Demiurge, a lesser god who evidently messes around with the universe with mixed results. Aristotle believed that the scope of god was even more limited, essentially to the role of prime mover of the universe, with no additional direct interaction with his creation (i.e., he was one of the first deists). In Physics, where he discusses the four causes, Aristotle treats nature itself as a craftsman, but clearly devoid of forethought and intelligence. A tiger develops into a tiger because it is in its nature to do so, and this nature is due to some physical essence given to it by its father (we would call it DNA) which starts the process out. Aristotle makes clear this rejection of god as a final cause (Cohen 2000) when he says that causes are not external to the organism (such as a designer would be) but internal to it (as modern developmental biology clearly shows). In other words, the final cause of a living being is not a plan, intention, or purpose, but simply intrinsic in the developmental changes of that organism. Which means that Aristotle identified final causes with formal causes as far as living organisms are concerned. He rejected chance and randomness (as do modern biologists) but did not invoke an intelligent designer in its place, contra Dembski. We had to wait until Darwin for a further advance on Aristotle's conception of the final cause of living organisms and for modern molecular biology to achieve an understanding of their formal cause.


Irreducible Complexity

There are two additional arguments proposed by ID theorists to demonstrate intelligent design in the universe: the con-cept of "irreducible complexity" and the "complexity-specification" criterion. Irreducible complexity is a term introduced in this context by molecular biologist Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box (1996). The idea is that the difference between a natural phenomenon and an intelligent designer is that a designed object is planned in advance, with forethought. While an intelligent agent is not constrained by a step-by-step evolutionary process, an evolutionary process is the only way nature itself can proceed given that it has no planning capacity (this may be referred to as incremental complexity). Irreducible complexity then arises whenever all the parts of a structure have to be present and functional simultaneously for it to work, indicating-according to Behe-that the structure was designed and could not possibly have been gradually built by natural selection.
Behe's example of an irreducibly complex object is a mousetrap. If you take away any of the minimal elements that make the trap work it will lose its function; on the other hand, there is no way to assemble a mousetrap gradually from a natural phenomenon, because it won't work until the last piece is assembled. Forethought, and therefore intelligent design, is necessary. Of course it is. After all, mousetraps as purchased in hardware stores are indeed human products; we know that they are intelligently designed. But what of biological structures? Behe claims that, while evolution can explain a lot of the visible diversity among living organisms, it is not enough when we come to the molecular level. The cell and several of its fundamental components and biochemical pathways are, according to him, irreducibly complex.

The problem with this statement is that it is contradicted by the available literature on comparative studies in microbiology and molecular biology, which Behe conveniently ignores (Miller 1996). For example, geneticists are continuously showing that biochemical pathways are partly redundant. Redundancy is a common feature of living organisms where different genes are involved in the same or in partially overlapping functions. While this may seem a waste, mathematical models show that evolution by natural selection has to produce molecular redundancy because when a new function is necessary it cannot be carried out by a gene that is already doing something else, without compromising the original function. On the other hand, if the gene gets duplicated (by mutation), one copy is freed from immediate constraints and can slowly diverge in structure from the original, eventually taking over new functions. This process leads to the formation of gene "families," groups of genes clearly originated from a single ancestral DNA sequence, and that now are diversified and perform a variety of functions (e.g., the globins, which vary from proteins allowing muscle contraction to those involved in the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood). As a result of redundancy, mutations can knock down individual components of biochemical pathways without compromising the overall function-contrary to the expectations of irreducible complexity.

(Notice that creationists, never ones to loose a bit, have also tried to claim that redundancy is yet another evidence of intelligent design, because an engineer would produce backup systems to minimize catastrophic failures should the primary components stop functioning. While very clever, this argument once again ignores the biology: the majority of duplicated genes end up as pseudogenes, literally pieces of molecular junk that are eventually lost forever to any biological utility [Max 1986].)

To be sure, there are several cases in which biologists do not know enough about the fundamental constituents of the cell to be able to hypothesize or demonstrate their gradual evolution. But this is rather an argument from ignorance, not positive evidence of irreducible complexity. William Paley advanced exactly the same argument to claim that it is impossible to explain the appearance of the eye by natural means. Yet, today biologists know of several examples of intermediate forms of the eye, and there is evidence that this structure evolved several times independently during the history of life on Earth (Gehring and Ikeo 1999). The answer to the classical creationist question, "What good is half an eye?" is "Much better than no eye at all"!

However, Behe does have a point concerning irreducible complexity. It is true that some structures simply cannot be explained by slow and cumulative processes of natural selection. From his mousetrap to Paley's watch to the Brooklyn Bridge, irreducible complexity is indeed associated with intelligent design. The problem for ID theory is that there is no evidence so far of irreducible complexity in living organisms
 

Freo Big Fella

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Posts
10,731
Likes
5,401
Location
The great wide north
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
WA, Australia
#22
mantis said:
I want one, Freo Big Fella do you know where you can buy these?

The page that I got the picture from said that they were a limited edition thing sold in the US after Dogma came out, so I don't know how you'd go getting one here. You might have some luck on E-Bay or something like that though.
 

mantis

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Posts
36,917
Likes
1,072
Location
Away from redneck country
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers
#23
Freo Big Fella said:
The page that I got the picture from said that they were a limited edition thing sold in the US after Dogma came out, so I don't know how you'd go getting one here. You might have some luck on E-Bay or something like that though.
Thanks for that, what site was it? Kevin Smith's website or Dogma site?
 

Weaver

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Posts
7,943
Likes
56
Location
Deledio Wonderland
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Southampton
#25
otaku said:
Arn't religious zealots funny?
I particularly like the way they manage on one hand to believe he is all powerful, all seeing and able to act how He pleases ... yet on the other hand they have the arrogance to tell us what He believes.

If their idea of God is right then he could well have changed all the rules and not elected to tell anyone.

I think the true Christian would be the one who when asked what God's will or plan is, just shrugged their shoulders. When asked about how salvation is acheived answered, "can't really know for sure."

When Christians declare people to be sinners or bound for hell, they are presuming to know God's will ... that is surely a sin. So I would have thought that Birdy is the most likely person on this thread due for hot spikes in the rectum on.
 
Top Bottom