For the past half century, the leading atheist in the world was philosopher Anthony Flew. He wrote over 30 philosophical works laying the intellectual groundwork for nonbelief. He debated Christian apologists. He was widely cited in atheist literature and at atheist conventions. What distinguished Flew was how comprehensive and fully-developed his atheist philosophy was. Other philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Martin Heidegger, espoused atheist beliefs but those beliefs were incidental to their philosophy. Atheism was Flew's philosophy. HIs works such as Theology and Falsification and The Presumption of Atheism were considered classics of theist thought.
Then Anthony Flew became a believer, and his book There Is A God describes his intellectual journey. Go ahead and order this book, along with my new book, What's So Great About Christianity. Together the two books represent what atheism has always dreaded: historically based, philosophically rich, scientifically fluent, logically reasoned refutations of atheism.
Flew says he has a lifelong commitment to going "where the evidence leads." And now, he calmly says, the evidence leads to theism. His own past writings have been exposed as a "relic." Flew writes, "My discovery of the divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena...It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. My discovery of the divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith."
Flew's argument for God combines science and philosophy, and I'll let you discover it for yourself in his book. What I enjoyed was the way he uses simple analogies to expose atheist illogic. For instance, leading atheists seek to prove that the mind is no more than the brain. If the brain is destroyed, they say, we can't use our minds. Therefore there is nothing to minds excerpt circuits and neurons. Flew gives the example of a child raised on a remote island who finds a satellite phone. Voices come out of the machine. The child recognizes these voices as human and is thrilled by the discovery that she has found a way to interact with other humans. Perhaps there is life outside the island! Then the elders of the tribe (if I may embellish Flew's account, let's call them Big Chief Dawkins, Grand Pooh Bah Dennett, and Witch Doctor Pinker) scorn the child and say, "Look, when we damage the instrument, the voices stop. So they're obviously nothing more than sounds produced by the unique combination of metals and circuit boards. Forget about learning about other humans. From all the evidence we have, we are the only living creatures on earth. So go back to making sandcastles." Who are the real dummies here?
Anthony Flew has been banished from the atheist community. Anthologies have been reprinted removing his essays. Atheist websites condemn him as an apostate. (Atheist toleration does not extend to former atheists.) He doesn't even make the case for Christianity, as I do. But Anthony flew out of the atheist cuckoo's nest, leaving anger and confusion among the unbelievers. And now Flew tells us why he rejects atheism. The atheist monopoly on public debate is over: the theists are striking back.
Reader Comments ( Page 22 of 23)
316. Flew's Logical Fallacy: Weak Analogy. Are you telling me a prominent philosopher couldn't see past his bias as he grew closer to dying? He accepted Pascal's Wager, that's all. Plus, Flew says his theism is not revealed by any of the current faiths. So then what the hell is it? He convieniently never defines God.
theoryparker at 5:55AM on Oct 15th 2007
317. Ray Ingles,
Actually, you could damage the phone in such a way as to make it generate gibberish. And I might add, the person on the other end of the line wouldn't necessarily be aware of the fact that the phone had been damaged and that what they were saying no longer made sense to the listener.
In Christ,
Christine
Christine Smith at 9:47AM on Oct 15th 2007
318. I have to tell you that as an educated R.N. AND Biologist. I have been an atheist from the age of nine. And the questions I asked that day still cannot be answered by the worlds religious figures. My mother was very religious and it did not become a fixed idea. Can any of you say the same. You were all indoctrinated with your parents ideas. Try googling "Concrete Actualization" "Cognitive Dissonance" and "MEME". Don't even think of replying to this until you have. I will know. Any Rush Limbaugh listener should could also benefit from this little exercise. Why do you think the brightest people are the ones who are most likely to be agnostics. And by the laws of statistics the smallest part of the population. Check the bell curves. Good luck and I hope that I put this in terms you can understand. Good luck and unless you have an I.Q OF 141 OR W/I A S.D, of of that. dont even try to answer this. As I said I will know. I will get no responses or very few. But try to talk on my level or better. Chip on old 66
Chip Shastid at 1:27AM on Oct 16th 2007
319. Responding to Chip (#317)
You may be "educated", but you do not appear to be "intelligent". Big difference. If you do not understand, then YOU can google the two terms yourself.
You wrote: "I have been an atheist from the age of nine."
Later you wrote: "Why do you think the brightest people are the ones who are most likely to be agnostics?"
Umm... Chip, hate to tell you this, but, umm, Atheists and Agnostics are not the same! But, then, perhaps you know that, which leads to the next question: If the most intelligent people tend to be Agnostics and you are so intelligent, then why are you an Atheist?
For the record, most agnostics I know are indeed intelligent. It is their intelligence that prevents them from being atheists.
A leading evolutionist, Stephen Gould was once asked if he believed in extra-terrestrial life (ETL). Gould’s answer: “No data.”
He did not say “yes”. (the “theist’s” or “positive” position)
He did not say “ETL does not exist." (the “atheist’s” or “negative” position)
Technically, he did not say “I do not know.” (the “agnostic’s” position)
But, if there is no data, is there any other intelligent position to take?
There is NO DATA OR EVIDENCE to support the classical atheist's position “God does not exist”, which is why most intelligent people are either theists or agnostics.
ray at 1:59AM on Oct 16th 2007
320. Correction to #318
In last paragraph, I should have included "deists" along with theists and agnostics.
ray at 2:17AM on Oct 16th 2007
321. "There is NO DATA OR EVIDENCE to support the classical atheist's position “God does not exist”, which is why most intelligent people are either theists or agnostics."
Seriously, "ray"? There is NO DATA OR EVIDENCE to support the Christian position that "God does exist". Please define intelligent people and let me know what circles you run in. I am friends with a wide variety of people who vary greatly in IQ or if you are not a believer in IQ tests... they vary widely in their ability to comprehend highly involved subjects and debates. I find those that I can have the most involved conversations with see no proof of "God", therefore do not believe in the existence of "God". I know far more religious people that lack intelligence than atheists as a whole. In fact, I can't say that I know an atheist who is unintelligent... I know plenty of unintelligent people that believe blindly and wholeheartedly or are very angry with "God" and speak of "him" disdainfully, yet somehow are still believers.
Either way, I am surprised to see no one has responded to my previous post regarding the possible areas to research. Maybe if I directly attack someone, like you, "ray", human ego will win out and I will become actively involved in the debate. Hmmmm... I can’t wait to find out. Shall we stick firmly to our own beliefs and attack those who feel differently or begin a scientific debate?
(Side Note: I am not the "Christian Michelle" or "Non-Christian Michelle". Feel free to call me One L as that seems to be the best way to differentiate.)
Michele at 7:00PM on Oct 16th 2007
322. Responding to One L Michele (#320)
Those that see no proof in the existence of God have two options (as I hinted to in #318):
- they can take the atheist position (God does not exist)
- they can take the agnostic position (I do not know.)
If they take the agnostic position, they do so without ANY empirical data or evidence. It is strictly a position of faith. Which is why few intelligent people take that position. As far as I can tell, even Carl Sagan never declared that God did not exist. He just could not believe that God did exist.
Is there EMPIRICAL data or evidence to support the position that God exists? Ehhhhh, not that most scientists will respect. But, there is testimony from the Hebrews and 1st century Christians as recorded in the Bible.
We believe many things to be historically true even though there is no "empirical data". Can you prove/demonstrate that Socrates or Plato existed?
ray at 3:35AM on Oct 17th 2007
323. Correction to #321:
Should have written "If they take the atheist position, they do so without ANY empirical data..."
ray at 3:37AM on Oct 17th 2007
324. I find it fascinating how many apparently read and are bothered by Dinesh's comments. If you believe he only spouts "lies," why continue? I'm also puzzled that some consider Dinesh's thoughts to be "lies." Are they only lies if you don't agree with them? Sounds like your tolerence only extends to those who think like you. Typical.
Maggie B. at 11:30AM on Oct 17th 2007
325. Good post Maggie.
Only I do not see it as fascinating, but sad.
ray at 2:17PM on Oct 17th 2007
326. Maggie B. (and possibly ray):
"I find it fascinating how many apparently read and are bothered by Dinesh's comments. If you believe he only spouts "lies," why continue?"
If you believe that he spouts lies, why wouldn't you want to correct them? If someone posted what you felt were false things about you, wouldn't you want to make sure that people heard your side of it (what you see as the truth) as well?
"I'm also puzzled that some consider Dinesh's thoughts to be "lies." Are they only lies if you don't agree with them?"
I think that much of what he says is deceptive, and not an outright lie. A lie is a lie, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
"Sounds like your tolerence only extends to those who think like you. Typical."
Unfortunately, that's how most people operate -- regardless of which side they're on in this argument. In fact, if there was more tolerance in, say, Dinesh... then we wouldn't likely be talking on this blog. He stirs up responses like you've seen by saying aggressive things.
Tem at 4:06PM on Oct 17th 2007
327. ray,
I liked your post better before the correction. :) I decided to look into the dictionary and find a concrete definition for atheist and agnostic. It is funny that the search only lead to more uncertainty.
If the definition of athiest is: a person who does not believe in God, then you have to define "believe" or "belief". I have always considered myself athiest because I do not believe in God; however, I am not one to assume that any or all of my beleifs are fact. They are just my own thoughts and feelings on a given subject; usually the result of my own research, though sometimes the result of intuition.
So we get down to the definition of belief: an opinion or conviction. This is a bit confusing since an opinion is different than a conviction.
Agnostic: asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. I certainly think that this too could describe me. I personally believe that god does not exist; however, I fully acknowledge that any claims to knowledge are uncertain.
So then this begs the question: Can one be atheist as well as agnostic? I feel strongly that god does not exist and in matters pertaining to myself, I treat it as fact. I am also human and prone to error, therefore I do not assert that any of my opinions are indeed fact.
Frankly, this makes me want to change the subject completely to Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions and various other articles on linguistics, but that's an entirely different can of worms.
I did find a nice quote while poking through the dictionary:
"The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell." [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]
As far as empirical data or evidence, here are the various definitions of empirical:
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Again, it's all relative and indefinite, isn't it?
So maybe I retract my previous assertion that I am athiest. Call me a secular humanist. That may be more appropriate.
Michele at 6:15PM on Oct 17th 2007
328. If we came from Monkeys, then why are there still monkeys??????????????
lisa at 6:15PM on Oct 17th 2007
329. Chip,
You stated:
"My mother was very religious and it did not become a fixed idea. Can any of you say the same. You were all indoctrinated with your parents ideas."
I find it odd that you appear to think you are the only one who has gone against your parental indoctrination. Correct me if I am wrong, but your post leads me to believe you find this a sign of your superior intelligence. Is it not a fairly common occurrence for a child to rebel and go against their parents’ ideas and beliefs? I also noticed your lack of a question mark after, "Can any of you say the same." Do you really want to know or are you sure that we were all brought up to believe what we currently believe? Could it be that your intent was only to address the religious?
My mother is and always has been religious. We were baptized and taken to church, yet it did not become a fixed idea in my mind. Very few things in my life are fixed ideas. As I take in new information, I have new ideas and beliefs. My previous post is a good example of that.
As far as "Concrete Actualization" "Cognitive Dissonance" and "MEME": What are you expecting anyone to gain from that research? It's all quite interesting, but what exactly is the point you are trying to prove?
If your ultimate question is "Why do you think the brightest people are the ones who are most likely to be agnostics" (which again, lacked a question mark), then it doesn't take extensive research on concrete actualization, cognitive dissonance, meme, or someone brilliant to answer. I think ray did a good job of responding. Not to say that ray isn't brilliant or has not done his research, because I really don't know enough about him to make any assumptions. I’m just saying it was not a difficult question.
I'm a bit confused as to why you would end your post with "But try to talk on my level or better". Frankly, your punctuation and sentence structure leave much to be desired. If you really are as intelligent as you say, you may want to take a class in writing so you can properly express your ideas. At the very least, you could try a spelling and grammar check before selecting the "Add Your Comments" button. On the internet, “talk” is writing and your level is average at best.
p.s. to ray: Had I thoroughly read Chip's post before your response to it, I would have better understood your intent and may not have jumped on that last paragraph so quickly. In other words, I apologize for responding prematurely (#320).
Michele at 7:50PM on Oct 17th 2007
330. Lisa:
A question like that, with that many question marks, practically begs this response:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm
Tem at 7:55PM on Oct 17th 2007