The atheist who changed his mind
posted at 12:48 pm on November 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
I’m technically on vacation but wanted to flag this profile of British philosopher Antony Flew in today’s NYT. A Christian friend mentioned him to me last year as evidence of the turning tide in the debate between believers and nonbelievers: a leading intellectual light among atheists for decades, he declared himself a deist in his old age. The occasion for the profile is his new book, “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.” Times contributor Mark Oppenheimer wanted to find out how someone so entrenched on one side of the divide came to migrate intellectually to the other (a phenomenon that goes both ways, incidentally). He settles on two contributing factors, the first being that Flew, by temperament, was never the sort of bomb-throwing polemicist in the Hitchens mold that so many atheists seem to be. Without that element of intellectual bloodsport compelling him towards loyalty to his own side, he was able to follow the evidence wherever it took him. Which is to say, he wasn’t much “entrenched.”
I’ll leave you to read the piece to find out what the other contributing factor was. Suffice it to say, it calls into question whether, and to what extent, Flew was able to follow the evidence at all, culminating in a gripping scene in his living room between Oppenheimer and the man himself plus a few choice quotes from Flew’s editor which suggest he may be being used — with his publisher’s knowledge — as a sort of ventriloquist’s dummy. The piece begins with Flew’s famous paper on the impossibility of proving God’s existence and ends, ironically, with the impossibility of even proving what Antony Flew thinks about God now. Read it all.
Update: I’m not having any trouble loading the page but others are. Try this if the links above don’t work.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Atheism fever, baby. Catch it!
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Here’s the survey HeIsSailing is thinking of.
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 6:23 PM
It takes an unbelievable amount of hubris to declare that nothing exists that can’t be found and understood by man.
Atheists always end up putting themselves(man) up as the highest entity in this existence. Just after they tell religious people they are weak, immature, unscientific, etc.
DavidM on November 4, 2007 at 6:40 PM
ronsfi:
I wasn’t trying to attack anyone I was just curious if anyone else had noticed the same as I have.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 6:42 PM
yeeesh, I am an atheist, and I see no reason to take this as an attack! Just a curious observation. Calm down, buddy.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Man can’t even understand how his own brain works but obviously consciousness exists. It’s not a question of hubris, it’s a question of applying reason to probability. Theoretically it’s possible that the World Trade Center is still standing but has simply entered some as yet undiscovered dimension that’s rendered it intangible and invisible. How likely is that, though?
That’s because I don’t agree with Hitchens that “religion poisons everything.” I think that Christianity on balance is a force for good (although it wasn’t always so, of course). Frankly, in the extremely unlikely event that I ever have kids, I’d hope they were raised Christian. But the fact remains that I think it’s all based on nonsense. As a famous man once said, here I stand, I can do no other.
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 6:48 PM
We’re doing okay even if Flew remains a slightly shaky deist.
John on November 4, 2007 at 6:49 PM
If you don’t believe in Christ, they why would want your children to follow Him? Very interesting statement.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Perhaps you’d like to go back and review my response to one of your earlier remarks.
leepro on November 4, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Because as I say, I think the lessons are good ones. I was raised Catholic and it didn’t do me any harm; it gave me a knowledge base I wouldn’t otherwise have had and I was free to walk away from it later on. I don’t believe in Santa either but it’s not like I’d pull my kids aside on Christmas morning and say, “Guess who doesn’t exist!”
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Ok, I’m curious how would you explain to them why they are going church and not daddy?
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 6:57 PM
BTW, I was at Biola when Flew came. I didn’t attend the ceremony but I was at a debate which he, for the most part, slept through (on stage). I guess that was a perfect metaphor for what the Times’ author was saying in his final graph.
John on November 4, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Ha, good question. I’d probably have to fall back on “Mommy knows best, she’s the expert.”
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Probably something to do with Plato’s “noble lie.” (See the Republice, and Leo Strauss for more). Not to speak for AP, of course, but a conservative atheist at least respects the usefulness of religion for socializing people, etc. I’ve been re-reading the Brothers Karamazov lately and there’s a great speech (I’m procrastinating studying, so I’ll type the whole thing out) said to Alyosha:
Written before the 20th Century, incidentally. Gotta love some Dostoevesky.
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Yeah that was cute. Here’s a cookie.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM
There’s a difference being an atheist and hating god. So many self-proclaimed atheists just hate god. There’s a huge difference.
SouthernGent on November 4, 2007 at 7:13 PM
More than that, it may be a fairly essential component of human nature required for civil society. My Santa analogy is that Santa’s magical role is adequately fulfilled by parents better than any “real” Santa could possibly do. IOW actual social benefit (or fun) derived from “belief” in Santa does not require the existence of a real Santa.
That’s why supporting a good religion makes more sense than none. As long as there is a critical mass of good believers civil society is possible. Otherwise nature abhors a vacuum and the role will be filled by ecofanatics, poor religion, or utopian politics.
Those outside the critical mass of believers are not exploiting the system, it may be that belief is the preferable human state and any reasonable atheist should conclude that the good religions at least have a better chance for some truth than the bad ones.
boris on November 4, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Yea, I’m a believer, by the way, but I understand this argument. Nevertheless, part of me has always had a problem reconciling the Platonic notion that philosophy should always aim at TRUTH with telling people a lie just because we recognize the use of that lie. In that sense, I can also see where the dogmatic atheists/anti-theists of Hitchens and Dawkins are coming from (even though I think their arguments for arriving at that conclusion are generally wrong).
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Nothing supports the position of deists more than the atheist position that they themselves, and everything that they have even seen, heard, touched or felt is the product of a freakish accident of chemistry in a world that otherwise exists without explanation or origin.
Riiiiiight.
Jaibones on November 4, 2007 at 7:40 PM
What lie? Nobody really knows. I don’t advocate preaching and converting, just tolerant support. It is the “anti-theists of Hitchens and Dawkins” ilk I oppose. IMO that is one of the “bad religions”.
boris on November 4, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Some refuse to accept that even a freakish accident of chemistry could produce life and evolution. Because once freakish is accepted, there is plenty of photographic proof that freakish accidents are dime a dozen in the cosmos from the Hubble telescope.
It really doesn’t matter what the exact odds are, if it can happen, it does happen … somewhere. Wherever that is, that’s where we find ourselves. As Buckaroo Bonzai once said: “no matter where you go … there you are.”
boris on November 4, 2007 at 8:05 PM
It seems to me you ask yourself a question. When you are injured or seriously ill. Do you go to a Priest, or a Doctor.
The answer to that will determine whether or not you believe in God.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 8:12 PM
That sounds as if it an obvious truth, but there happen to be many interesting counterexamples. A simple one involves counting. Primitive man (really primitive) used to count using his fingers, or some other type of simple pairing of elements. As Man progressed, we developed highly sophisticated methods of counting, extended the Natural numbers in all sorts of ways, and were so far removed from the “old” ways that telling someone they didn’t have enough fingers to count with (or had to take their shoes off) was considered the ultimate intellectual insult.
Then, in the 19th century, Georg Cantor started looking at counting, again, and decided that the true essence of counting had been lost in the complex (and brilliant) tools that we had created. Cantor took a radical approach and returned to the idea that counting by fingers is, actually, the best definition – a one-to-one correspondence in modern parlance. From this, Cantor came up with one of the greatest strokes of genius in all of human history with his Set Theory. Pure genius.
Now, a very interesting twist to this that ties directly to this atheist/believer argument is that Cantor was able, by returning to the primitive method of counting, to actually describe all sorts of different infinities, of different SIZES! The Church was appalled at Cantor for deigning to move into G-d’s realm by actually describing infiniy and even “insulting” the notion of infinity by saying that different infinities exist.
I just thought that this is a very interesting example that all should keep in mind before they throw away an idea just because of when it was first thought.
progressoverpeace on November 4, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I was merely pointing out that the existence of Santa (to use your analogy) is a lie told to children. I think we’re on the same page here, but if you believe that the content of religion (that isn’t moral, I guess) is false, then telling children that would be telling them a lie. I don’t think that the metaphysical content or whatever is a lie, but someone who does, and then still proceeds to teach children it because of its usefulness would obviously still be teaching what they believed was a lie. Moreover, teaching someone that Santa brings them presents seems to me a lot different than teaching them that they have an eternal soul, etc. It changes the person’s very way of looking at the world. Is it really better to teach people a lie? Or should we always aim at truth, even if we don’t like it? I’m just posing questions here.
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 8:14 PM
False dilemma. I would go to both.
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 8:15 PM
OK I’ll play. If you had to choose?
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Also last time you went to the Hospital. Did you bring your priest?
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I don’t know if I would be so certain about that. Although I do not find these Scriptures to be of any authoritative or Divine origin, I do think they represent humanity trying desperately to understand the world around them by positing the supernatural. It is humanity reaching for God. In that sense, I think there is much to be learned from ancient Scriptures, because in a sense they mirror exactly who we are. The Bible, for instance, demonstrates that our hope for future salvation, our desires for justice, and our seeming drive to wrap the unknowable into a mystical realm, have been the same for thousands of years.
The mythus is very powerful for humanity, and contains valuable lessons. We seem to thrive on it. Whether we believe in it literally is another matter altogether.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 8:38 PM
You’re assuming theists don’t trust doctors, medicine, science, or even technology. Just because we believe in the afterlife doesn’t mean we don’t trust what we see in the natural.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Why do I have to choose? Would I ever have to choose in real life?
Hmm, yes, maybe I would. If I were critically injured and waiting for the paramedics, I would certainly want a priest there to give me the last rites. But again, you’re setting up a strange dilemma that really has no basis in the real world. Not very scientific of you. Not very scientific at all. Do you think if I were lying in pool of my own blood someone would say: “We can only call the priest or the doctor, which is it?” C’mon, give me a break.
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Poor, poor pitiful
meyou.. My observations are based on the tone of your comments, which are snotty and arrogant.It’s all fine and dandy to claim that you don’t engage in “personal attacks”. So what? You went on the attack and then proceeded to whine about other people attacking you.
Your very first post today was this, addressed to no one, and it only deteriorated from there:
I don’t care what your personal beliefs are, but what is patently clear is that you have no respect for other people’s view points. That is something which distinguishes AP from you.
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Also, last time I went to the hospital was for a check-up, so I was pretty sure the doctor could handle it. You know, priests aren’t witch doctors (although I know in your atheist mind, they’re all the same).
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 8:47 PM
That’s just it. It isn’t a lie. Parent’s act as Santa, they make his work real. Santa exists in the minds of the parent through their deeds and in the mind of the child who is aware Santa’s existence is not of the ordinary sort.
My analogy isn’t about that aspect anyway, the point was that the social benefit, life experience enhancement, or just fun does not require an actual physical Santa entity.
As to religions, a few are clearly better, and active promotion of them by non believers is not required. IMO judging them based on physical existence of a deity misses the point. If there is no supernatural source for religions then where do they come from? They must have evolved as part of human nature to be so pervasive and durable.
Not eveybody has an appendix so clearly humans can live without them. But it turns out they do have a function that just happens to be less necessary in modern society. Religion might be like that or it might be more essential.
boris on November 4, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Er, yes, it is a lie. Santa doesn’t live at the North Pole; he doesn’t make presents with his elves all year; he doesn’t fly around dropping them off on Christmas Eve. Lie, lie, lie. A wonderful lie, but a lie nonetheless.
Good deeds don’t change the veracity of lies.
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Just catching up with all the comments.
I am stunned that Ronsfi thinks one has to make a choice between a Priest and a Doctor. Where does one get these ideas? Is this what Richard Dawkins preaches, uh, teaches?
The Christianity is a force for evil argument is a huge problem that I encounter frequently (on blogs) and it’s usually part of a belief system which says that America is a force for evil.
I have no problem at all with someone not believing in God. I do have a problem with people not believing in the greatness of this nation. My anecdotal experience is that nasty Atheists and anti-Americanism tend to go hand in hand.
Nice Atheists manage to love and respect this country and appreciate, if not celebrate, its foundations and traditions.
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Fair enough, but let’s recognize that Hitchens is a stark exception.
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 9:03 PM
It’s a lie that storks deliver children too. An atheist would say that it’s a lie that children are a gift from God.
Should children be told about Veejayjays and big brothers at an early age because that is reality?
Just wondering.
Later…
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 9:11 PM
No. Why on earth would you ask me that?
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Boris:
Claiming that Santa is not a lie only makes sense if you are making a distinction between the lie of Santa and the myth of Santa. It is much the same distinction people make between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. I think with Santa, that is a tightrope I do not want to walk with considering it is a belief that is only held by children.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Before I run – my experience is with Leftist Atheist American Bloggers. Coincidentally they all oppose the Iraq War, fervently believe in Global Warming and Darwinism, believe that that America purposely put smallpox on the blankets of Indians, think we’re racists and homophobes, admire Socialism, can’t wait for national health care, want high taxes, and so forth.
For all his nastiness, Hitchens doesn’t loathe this country, and I think I read something recently where he admitted a certain appreciation of what Anglo-Saxon England contributed to civilization.
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 9:21 PM
BuyDanish:
I am not too familiar with Dawkins, although I can’t imagine he would preach, uh, teach something that lame. Hey, I could be wrong though.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 9:05 PM
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Sorry, I wasn’t clear there. It was meant more as a general question for people who think it is wrong to “lie” to children by creating “myths”.
You have said that Santa is a “wonderful lie” and recongize that there is a place for stories like this.
Gotta run!
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 9:29 PM
I’m not sure anyone here is bashing science. One of my intellectual heroes, a Mr. Walker Percy, spoke out against what is sometimes called “scientism” or the view/belief that science is the sole basis of knowing about reality. Percy was himself a trained doctor (but never practiced) prefering to be a “doctor of the soul” by writing novels. Anyways, I think science is great. I just have a problem with people who think science is the sole foundation for knowing. Percy, echoing Kierkegaard, said something to the effect that science can tell everything about the most distant star in the galaxy, but it can’t speak about what it means to live and to die as a man. In other words, it has nothing to say on what it means to really exist, to really live on a daily basis as human being on earth.
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Santa DOES live at the North pole! In the sense that’s where Santa’s home is.
It is not a lie to say a loved one “lives” on in memory. It is not a lie to claim the actor “lives” the character. It is a distinction somewhat beyond a child but to call anything other than the physical and biological a “lie” is itself a lie. It is at the very least dishonest.
boris on November 4, 2007 at 9:55 PM
That,s great. I am all for exploring the ineffable wonder of conscious intelligence. To me knowing “everything about the most distant star in the galaxy” tells me a lot about what it means to really exist. To know where I stand ,in reality, to the universe tells where I stand. It’s hard to say I am the center of universe when the center can not be known. The stunning depths of time and space are, even when explained clearly, unfathomable to me. I can’t get MY mind around it. The cosmos is full of great mystery. I believe that the old paradigm is incompatible with new model of the universe that has revealed itself in just the last 40 years. Human institutions can not keep up with such a fast pace of change and we see the anarchy and chaos that might be expected from such radical shifts. The difference between you and me is that you see this as the end of the world that was prophesied. I see it as the continuation of a strange a wonderful journey of life.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 10:00 PM
I’m sorry but this is just silly. Santa has no actual basis in reality (other than evolving out of the Saint Nicholas story). It’s like saying hobbits live in the Shire. Yes, they do in the made-up Tolkien story the Lord of the Rings, but they don’t actually exist in reality (except those pre-human guys they found somewhere…you know what I’m talking about).
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 10:01 PM
So, ronsfi, knowing that HD 10307 is 42 light years from Earth, situated in the Andromeda constellation, has a Luminosity (Sun=1) of 1.44, and a surface temperature of 5800C tells you what it means to get up on Wednesday morning, lounge the day away, perhaps talk with some friends, and make love to a woman (or man)? Interesting.
But seriously buddy, I think you may getting ahead of yourself. When did I say that this is the end of the world that was prophesied? You know, not all religious believers are Bible-thumping Left Behind readers. I know this is a difficult concept for atheistic followers of scientism to grasp, but just try, OK, dear?
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Where the hell did Will rattle off end of the world prophesies? Did Boris do PR work for Clinton? All this and more revealed in..
Yet another god-no god argument on Hotair!
I’m sure I’ve already managed to offend someone with just one post, so I’ll go now.
Reaps on November 4, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Why are you getting so exercised? I was trying to be nice. It’s meaningful to me to know my place in the grand scheme of things. You? Not so much. Fine. Take a pill.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Evolution is a scientific theory that is testable and falsifiable. It isn’t a matter of religious faith.
dedalus on November 4, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Oh man, oh man. It’s like arguing with a brick wall. 1) I’m not “exercised” 2)I, too, want to know my place in the grand scheme of things. In fact, more than anything else. But I just don’t think science is the only thing that’s going to show me my place. You do. Comprende?
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 10:39 PM
The famous British intellectual and formerly vocal atheist Malcolm Muggeridge was another ex-atheiest.
.
Muggeridge became a born-again Christian later in life. He became a great student of the Bible and an eloquent speaker on behalf of Christianity.
DavePa on November 4, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Let’s not forget that Santa is based on a real Christian who actually inspired the legend.
John on November 4, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Thanks for the complement. Best wishes and goodnight.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 10:55 PM
I’m going to bring this back from a few days ago:
I couldn’t find it but I believe that CSL argues in this book, somewhere, that the conscience is a poor substitute for someone’s spirituality. Any help, anyone?
But I did find this bit:
To me, this argument is a lot more insightful and brilliant than “a bare assertion spun out of superstition.”
silverfox on November 4, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Very quickly before I run out again -
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Have I bashed science? Where? See WillBarret’s comments.
What a drama queen. I don’t hate you! I said you are sour and have a chip on your shoulders, and there is nothing you have said that allays my initial impression.
I don’t want, nor do I require your forgiveness. Gosh if you keep this up pretty soon you’ll be telling me that you pray for me.
I agree that evolution is falsifiable.
Good night all.
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 11:15 PM
You realize this makes you sound like those people that flipped over Coulter’s recent “antisemitic” comments, right? I don’t believe I’ve ever “condemned people like you” to an eternity of anything. That’s not my job. But, like Coulter, am I supposed to apologize for actually believing in my beliefs? I don’t come on here “condemning” anyone, and I can’t think of a time I’ve preached religion at anyone.
Oh, and my comment on “condescending turds” is, as you know, justified by the comments of militant atheists, especially many of those that seem to monopolize these threads lately (which I still find funny – if I was an atheist, certainly I’d be less concerned with this stuff, and more concerned with having a good time for every second I’m alive… rather than being concerned about others believing in God). But regardless, my guess (as an answer to someone else’s question) about why these threads are becoming atheist circle jerks, had nothing to do with “condemning you to eternal torture”. It was simply pointing out that the reason the other side (theists) may be staying away, is because the attitude of the atheist side is increasingly obnoxious and hostile. You can agree or disagree with that being the reason, or even whether that’s actually the case… but it’s a far cry from me condemning you to anything (and I’d say, with the exception of a few nuts here and there, most aren’t here “condemning” you or anyone else).
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 12:30 AM
What if you believe in God, die, and find out you were wrong?
What if you don’t believe in God, denying Him and everyone who does believe, and you die…
…and find out you were wrong?
leepro on November 5, 2007 at 12:44 AM
No, not at all. I think highly of your belief. From reading AP’s comments I don’t see a denigration of the people who believe or the impact of their belief.
The question with Coulter’s comments is whether she meant perfecting “the United States” or perfecting individuals from a religious standpoint.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 12:44 AM
The story of Antony Flew is old news to many of us who have tried to follow the many changes in the philosophy of atheism/religion discussion over the last couple of years.
Some atheists may find this book interesting. In particular, the section by A. J. Ayer was very interesting.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 12:48 AM
If you could do so, you’d likely be able to generate a billion dollars or more for yourself.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 12:51 AM
I follow your posts on religion and philosophy with interest and respect.
Also, I thought your team played a heckuva game. It was just a warm up for the AFC championship (which should be redefined as The Super Bowl). Never saw two better teams in the regular season over the past 30 years.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 12:54 AM
So not true. Mainstream science doesn’t allow for dissenting opinion on evolution. The only thing scientific inquiry consistently leads to is shattering previously held beliefs that were based on evolutionary assumptions, but we are not allowed to EVER question the theory of evolution overall.. just make “adjustments”. It’s no different than what goes on with “global warming”. Question it and your job and funding are in jeopardy.
Also, it’s similar the search for alternative fuels. There are a lot of people who’ve come up with a lot of ideas over the years, but they’re silenced by the oil industry (and I’m far from a “big oil” basher, but the truth is the truth).
I didn’t say AP’s comments were denigrating anyone, I was responding to his response (perhaps you didn’t see my original comment, which was actually an attempt to answer someone who wondered why theists weren’t here). I simply said it’s probably because of the condescending and obnoxious attitudes from many of the atheists around here… for some reason that prompted a comment from Allah about folks on my side of this thing “condeming” him to an eternity of torture… which I objected to, because I haven’t done that, unless it is his position that the very act of being a Christian is doing this… in which case, his comment mirrors the attacks on Coulter.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Yea,
I think AP, your beef is more with the boorish, immature Christians than the sincerely truth-seeking Christians, granted there are a lot of boors around, and granted “we all fall short of the glory of God…”
Regarding, again, C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity,” here is a fascinating take from him, even though the times were different when he was alive: he felt more tolerant and “liberal” when he moved from atheism to faith.
In the book:
silverfox on November 5, 2007 at 1:28 AM
And in defense of Ann Coulter, I think all she was saying is, from her point of view as a Christian, she doesn’t think Jews have the right, correct, perfect answer.
But their answer, as in C.S. Lewis’ mathematical sum, is a whole lot more right than most of the other wrong answers.
silverfox on November 5, 2007 at 1:36 AM
In fairness to Allah, he was on the right side of the Coulter “controversy”. Coulter essentially just said what any religious person believes “I’m right, and others aren’t.” (Note: I hate using the word “religious” because it trivializes true belief). Anyway, should we be outraged when atheists say they don’t believe in God? Of course not, but that is the type of outrage that was let loose on Coulter. Admittedly, she asked for it by wording her comments the way she did, because she knows how to get publicity.
So again, Allah was on the right side of that one, I just think his response to me was akin to the criticism leveled against her. I didn’t condemn him to eternal torture, so why even use that in a response to my guess as to why these threads become atheistfests? He knows there’s a lot of condescension and militant atheism out there… whether he notices it from others (not him) in these threads or not, or thinks that my guess was any where close is something he could comment on, I just don’t see where this complaint of being condemned to eternal torture comes from. I don’t condemn him like that, so I just don’t get the comment.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Read Mere Christianity many years ago (among several others of his). Must read it again. I read somewhere that when he set out to write this book, his intention was to show that his own (earlier) efforts to prove God does not exist were part of the reason he converted. He had inadvertently proven to himself that there is no way He could not exist!
/if this post comes out all jumbled up, it’s because the Preview button is not working. I’ve reported it, but…???
leepro on November 5, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Darn. See? “Mere Christianity” was supposed to be underlined like a a book title’s supposed to be. But the formatting buttons are messed up, too (also reported). I picked the one that says “ul”. It put in the code, but also broke the line as if it were a paragraph. ???
leepro on November 5, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Not to beat a dead horse here – sorry Mr. Ed – but the whole point of “Mere Christianity” was an attempt by Lewis to map out the overlapping common ground of four major denominations, i.e. the Catholic, Anglican, Methodist an Presbyterian churches: the major churches of the UK.
In Lewis’ words:
silverfox on November 5, 2007 at 2:50 AM
I was quoting you directly so if there are billions to be made, go for it!
Buy Danish on November 5, 2007 at 8:17 AM
That’s silly given the context.
It’s like saying The Boogyman has no basis in reality. There is plenty of basis in reality for the The Boogyman. Having just written parents fill the role and are the “basis in reality” for Santa, you write that.
At some point deliberate failure to get a simple point becomes a substitute for reasonable discourse.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Not this again ….
Either life happened by accident and evolved from there …
OR …
We had some help from “above”.
Both or neither are falsifiable so that argument carries zero force either way.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 9:02 AM
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
I think Richard Seymour was the key to the game, along with Brady and especially Moss.
We lost to a great team.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 9:02 AM
It probably won’t settle the argument but science is approaching the point where a functioning living cell can be constructed from non-living chemicals.
If it works, that will “prove” that life by accident is at least possible and can be “designed” by a natural human intelligence.
If it does not work what would indicate there is some extra mysterious ingredient to life that science does not understand.
So … lets just see how that turns out.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Maybe we are talking about two different things. By evolution I’m referring to a scientific theory that is supported by empirical evidence and explains the mechanics of biological change. It seems like you are referring to the origin of life which is more a cosmological question.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 9:36 AM
One Flew over the cuckoo’s nest.
sonnyspats1 on November 5, 2007 at 9:43 AM
There would be if one succeeded. I don’t believe one would succeed. A friend of mine wanted me to invest in a treasure hunting startup. Once they find treasure they’ll be able to pay off their operational expenses and reward investors. I passed on that one. I’d be more likely to invest in a SETI-style venture than one that was determined to unearth enough fossil evidence to disprove evolution–and I don’t believe UFO’s come to the planet other than to drop off Dennis Kucinich.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 9:50 AM
I did write: “Either life happened by accident and evolved from there …”
For that very reason.
Since both presume that life as we know it resulted from chance it is reasonable to combine for the “falsifiable” argument. Nobody claims that a fully developed human could spontaneously assemble by chance from promoirdial chemicals.
I know you want to claim that a specific sequence of evolutionary steps could be “falsified” and that makes eveolution “more scientific” but sorry that’s bogus, no sale. Even most IDers admit small scale evolution occurs.
You and I are stuck with the whole enchilada amigo.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Bing.
Jaibones on November 5, 2007 at 9:56 AM
Unless these scientists can create that living, evolving cell from nothing, then my original point is unchallenged. The existence of matter and time in my original comment is evidence of a higher power.
Where did the chemicals come from? Where did the universe come from? Where does your “natural” space begin or end? What’s on the other side of that end?
Jaibones on November 5, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Believing that a god exists and believing that the Christian God who instructs his followers to kill the babies of their enemies is the absolute moral authority and deserving of worship are two very different things.
At the very least I should be able to worship a God that finds it just as apalling to plunge a sword into the belly of a 3 yr old boy as I do. Numbers 31:17
Psalm 137:19 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Happy shall HE be… Praise the Christian God/Jesus that is happy to dash the little ones with stones? How to reconcile that? I can’t. Takes a helluvalot of mental gymnstics and looking the other way at atrocities.
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 10:02 AM
You made the original statement but then challenged me to prove it.
I don’t understand your thinking here.
Buy Danish on November 5, 2007 at 10:05 AM
But certainly you can see the mirth of a young child dying slowly and painfully as a stirring testament for a god who loves us and has a plan for us. Such a thing truly speaks toward not only the apparent order we see in the universe, but especially toward a god who is in full control and loves us unconditionally.
Face it, atheists. Childhood cancer PROVES that god exists and that he loves us!
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 10:11 AM
For an atheist to disapprove of a Biblical quote due to problems with the ethics and morality that allegedly lies behind the quote, first of all, the atheist needs an absolute yardstick or ethical rule to adjudicate competing and conflicting moral claims. The atheist needs a foundation in order to rationally even discuss the question of why the atheist disapproves of a Biblical quote or not.
If the atheist denies the rational need for an absolute moral yardstick (or “ruler” or “criterion”) in order to weigh or measure conflicting or disturbing moral statements, then the atheist’s position becomes very untenable and is revealed to be on a foundation of sand:
1.) you need a absolute moral or ethical criterion in order to first describe your objection, without fear of intellectual inconsistency. Denying this 1.) only causes your position to be grounded in some sort of subjectivism, relativism, or fallacious appeal.
2.) but if the atheist even tries to accomplish 1.), then the atheist must move away from his presupposition of a dis-enchanted universe. This move then creates internal problems of contradiction and inconsistency with other tenets held by the atheist.
There are Christian responses to the Imprecatory Psalms like the one mentioned above.
My only purpose was to point out that the atheist has problems of a logical contradiction, in even trying to frame the very question of the imprecatory Psalms.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 10:19 AM
My original statement was that evolution as a scientific theory is falsifiable, in the sense that Karl Popper described. For instance, finding primate fossils in Precambrian rocks would tend to disprove the principle of common descent.
Sorry if it appeared, in my original statement, that I was saying I could dig up evidence to disprove evolution. I can’t. However, the theory is structured so that empirical evidence can prove or disprove its validity.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 10:29 AM
The existence of evil and human tragedy troubles Christians on an existential, human, emotional level.
There are excellent responses to the problem of evil.
The author of the above book, John Feinberg, is a Christian philosopher whose wife was diagnosed with an incurable, genetically-transmitted disease. It is a very sad story, one involving the grief and tragedy of a first-rate, busy scholar trying to come to terms with a wife who is dying of Huntington’s chorea.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 10:37 AM
I agree.
This is why I believe anti-realism in the philosophy of science has much philosophical and empirical support simply because the claim, “Science or evolution says so,” does not pay the intellectual bills at the end of the day.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 10:39 AM
No ColtsFan. Silly logic arguments = mental gymnastics. It is wrong to kill babies. It was wrong in 6000 BC and it is wrong today. Morality should not improve as ages go by. If God is eternal then his morality should be unchanged. What is wrong today would be considered wrong then by an unchanging God. Most Christians today would say that God would condemn those that did that very thing back in the OT. I have read the apologetics, Mental gymnastics to explain how a “good” god could command his followers to do “evil” things. Sickening to try and justify the slaughter of children so you can feel good about your beliefs.
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 10:42 AM
I don’t have much day-to-day interaction with the supernatural. If there is such a thing, it resides outside of my natural senses.
That said, I think the value and appeal of religion in general–and specifically Christianity is that it affirms the value of the child with cancer. It places a burden on us to care for the child and all of us whether rich, powerful, frail, or poor are equal in the eyes of our creator. The child with cancer will suffer and die young but will enjoy the same eternal life as all who embrace God.
I do think in that sense Christianity, by affirming the value of all human life, is an important pillar of democracy.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Foggery. Of course many elements of evolution are based on reasonable speculation and adjustments are made when new findings require them. Still, the falsifiable argument is bogus wrt “life as we know it happened by chance”.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 10:46 AM
The existence of evil is quite different from the Christian God/Jesus taking pleasure in his followers obedience in partaking of that evil.
There should be no “wiggle” room with God’s morality. Either something is right or something is wrong. The killing of baby boys shouldn’t be left up to the apologetics of mere men to “apologize” for God’s failure to write or inspire a book that is without error when it contains thousands upon thousands of errors.
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 10:47 AM
ISTM that Jesus dying on the cross was part of the master plan. You might consider that life and death have different meaning at the supernatural level.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 10:51 AM
And Christian God did not provide that. Is it right to slaughter children or is it not? Is it right to own slaves or is it not? Is it right to punish children for the sins of their fathers or is it not?
You want to argue an absolute moral code as if God actually provided us one.
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 10:52 AM
If you are in a car accident you’re going to call an Ambulance not a priest.
ronsfi on November 5, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Jesus is the God that commanded the killing of the babies in the first place. Trinity takes care of that. God=Jesus=God. So does God change his mind?
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 10:53 AM
I agree that it is wrong for men to ordain the killing of babies by men.
But I am the one who is the Christian theist here. The mistaken view that “morality evolves” or “morality gets better with advances in education, etc or with time” is not the Christian position.
Christians are the ones who do not believe that the nature of morality changes with time. We Christian theists readily believe in moral absolutes. The atheist worldview denies the existence of moral absolutes.
Are you really a theist, but simply despise organized religion?
Because you are really using Christian arguments here, instead of the relativistic, subjectivistic ones articulated often by the atheist.
I agree that there are a body of beliefs, call them B1.
Beliefs B1 are unchanging, invariate, and are true regardless of time, location, etc.
But there are some moral beliefs, call them B2, that are not grounded in an absolute sense, but rather they are contingent and variate, and they do change with location, time.
Most Christians would need a theological foundation to explain or understand the Imprecatory Psalms. And the very act of explaining or understanding the Imprecatory Psalms, first requires a worldview that admits FIRST the existence of moral absolutes.
I have that worldview because I am a Christian, and I believe, as a logical consequence, that the universe is philosophically “enchanted.”
The atheist does not have that worldview, because atheism, as a system, believes that all of reality is reducible to “dis-enchantment.”
I am not at all discouraging you from reading or understanding or even wrestling with the theological issue of the imprecatory Psalms. But for you to lodge a philosophical objection based on uncomfortable views about morality due to Biblical verses first requires a worldview that includes an absolute criteria, or a “yardstick” that even allows you to make statements like you made.
The atheist may write philosophical checks, by saying, “I have a problem with this verse from the Bible based on this reason, etc” yet all of the checks eventually bounce because the atheist worldview has no money in the checking account.
Atheists enjoy making claims which they cannot back up. This is not at all because atheists are mean, nasty people. It is due to the fact that atheism—as a system—cannot account at all for the laws of morality, laws of logic, etc.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Good point.
Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding here. I was heading in one philosophical direction, and you (correctly) clarified it.
You have made excellent points again.
We do not do apologetics to “apologize.” We do “apologetics” to honor Christ.
The alleged “errors” of the Bible is a complex discussion involving hermeneutical, syntactical, grammatical, theological, and philosophical angles that would be independent of the original discussion of the Imprecatory Psalms.
You seem to have a worldview that includes moral absolutes.
You cannot be an atheist then, unless you embrace openly logical contradictions, in your worldview.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 11:12 AM
I’m perfectly willing to concede in a “creator”. Call me agnostic. I argue that the Christian God is not Him. A perfect creator would not bestow unto me this absolute moral code and then inspire writings which defy the moral code he has instilled in me.
If I have a problem with God’s morality my problem arises from the very moral code that God must have endowed in my being. So God apparently gave me a moral code that is at odds with God’s morality. Hmmmm.
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 11:15 AM
More mental gymnastics. Apologetics are most certainly written to “explain” obvious errors, moral dilemmas, hypocrisies, translation errors, copy errors, outright discrepancies and actual additions to the bible. Look up the story of the prostitute. Many ancient texts don’t have that beautiful story. Why not?
Bart Erhman, former Christian, does an excellent job pointing out transcriptual errors. I encourage you to watch all 10 segments when able. Misquoting Jesus
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »