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 23 of 23)
331. Responding to Tem (#325)
Sorry for delay in response...
You wrote:
“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?”
Absolutely! I agree. Which is the primary reason I jumped into this fray. If you “research” my posts (hypothetical “if”; it would not be a good use of your time!), you will find that I seldom debate the main topics of religion, evolution, creationism, etc. I do address specific claims that I believe are factually incorrect and specific views that I believe are obviously wrong or distorted. One of my peeves is “Religion is bad because of all the deaths (or wars fought) in the name of God”.
To my knowledge, DD has not made any factually incorrect claims. Some of his logic is seriously flawed and I do agree with some of his critics that his apparent reason for writing these articles is to sell his books. However, even if I concede all of that, that would not justify the level of contempt and disdain many of these people have towards DD. They seem pathological in their behavior. Just look at the first 50 posts in each of last 10 articles written by DD. You will see the same people over and over.
Now, if they are “correcting his lies”, OK. But, mot of them simply want to rant. Maggie’s perspective may not apply to all of DD’s critics, but, far too many of them do fit her description.
ray at 11:29AM on Oct 18th 2007
332. Responding to “One L Michele” (#328 & #326)
Eventually, someone will write a Country & Western song titled “One L Michele”. :-)
Anyway, sorry for delay in response. This is long and not my best (I don't like the way I end it, but...). It is a difficult topic to write about. At least for me.
First things first. Responding to #328, please do NOT apologize for any thing you wrote in #320. I did not agree with everything, but I was not offended. Because of the inherent difficulties in interpreting the tones people use when they write, I USUALLY read these posts very objectively. In some cases, after having previously dealt with an individual, I can pick up on certain attitudes, but, that does not happen on the first post. So, again, no apology needed.
And I do appreciate your support in your response to Chip.
(Side note – I have to wonder if he meant to post that in another blog. It seems to come out of nowhere. His comments about atheism do fit, but…???)
Responding to #326
I like your approach. Start with the definitions! And I agree with you, the definitions in the dictionary are not clear. How can we really provide a clear definition of the prefixes if we can not even provide a clear definition for the base word? Or more specifically, how can we settle on a definition for “atheist” if we can not settle what “a” means and what “theist” means? Some may say, “Wait a minute. We have a definition for theist?” I disagree. As you pointed out, what do we mean by “belief”?
And just how do we communicate or account for the lack of 100% confidence in anything we know? Can any of us truly claim 100.000% intellectual confidence in anything?
Suppose we are discussing “X”
First, X must be a VERY specific, very narrow claim.
It can not be composed of multiple components.
The reason being that is if there are multiple components, you can have different answers and levels of belief about the different components.
Examples:
“Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.” (Possible role of others is a separate claim.)
“God exists.” (Where, how He got here, and His nature are separate claims.)
“The universe is expanding.” (Expansion rate, etc. are separate claims.)
I have been told that mathematics is the language of logic.
So, let me start my explanation using a line segment:
o-----------------------|---------------------o
This line segment represents all the possible levels of belief in X.
The right end of the segment is labeled “X exists or is true, 100%”
This represents complete 100% confidence or belief in X.
The left end of the segment is labeled “X does not exist or is false, 100%”
This represents complete 100% confidence or belief in X.
The midpoint = "I don't know."
Note the open circles at each end. I use them because that denotes that none of us can be 100.0000% sure of anything. There is always some room for intellectual doubt. But, that does not make us a weak “believer” or an “agnostic”.
If you truly believe that God does not exist (with a little room for honest doubt), I would still consider you an atheist. If you are truly undecided, then I consider you “agnostic”.
I believe in God as much as anyone can believe. Are there questions, some level of intellectual doubt, YES. But, I still consider myself a “theist”.
OK – so how do we label these different regions of the line segment. How do we label those regions between the ends and the midpoint.
You wrote: “Frankly, this makes me want to change the subject completely to Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions and various other articles on linguistics”.
So true!
A little background. I have spent the past 3 years traveling back and forth to China. When you spend time with people of a different language and culture, and have to explain your language, you begin to see your language in a different light. Part of the problem is that the rules of our language are not consistent. That includes grammar, phonetics, and the use of prefixes.
Just what does the “a” mean when used as a prefix? Does “amoral” mean “no morals” or that it “violates existing morals”? No, it usually means “without a moral component”.
What does “asexual” mean? Disapproves of sexuality? No “sexual component”?
What does the “non” mean when it is used as a prefix?
Does “nontheist” = “atheist”?
Does “nonbeliever” = “abeliever”?
If that is the case, then, where does agnostic come into play. Isn’t the agnostic a “nonbeliever”?
I want to explore the definition of “agnostic”.
The dictionaries seem to treat “agnostic” as a mindset or perspective of all knowledge, much like “skepticism”. And I do not disagree with that. But, when most of us speak of belief, disbelief, or “I don’t know”, we are usually talking about a specific issue. So if the issue is X, then an agnostic is one who is undecided or does not know whether X is true or X is false.
Let’s discuss the definition of atheist. Even if you go to websites sponsored by atheists, you have a hard time getting a solid definition. Some examples:
(a) “Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.” (From the American Atheist website)
(b) “Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God.”
(from the Skeptics Disctionary)
(c)“The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most base terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God, that he is knowable, and that he is involved in the world. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists, but simply non-theists."
(d) “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.--Stephen Roberts”
Going back ~30 years, based on my memories, experiences, and interactions with atheists, the classical, historical definition of atheism = “God does not exist.” Or “There is NO god.”
Some atheists insist that they do not make that claim. And some of the definitions seem to support that, but, then those same definitions then make strong appeals for that claim. I think (c) is the most accurate.
I know that some atheists will want to claim “they have no belief”, much like the phrase “apatheist” implying “they do not care”. That may be true, but “caring” and “believing are two different claims. Or, in mathematical terms, caring about the existence of God = X and believing in the existence of God = Y.
ray at 11:38AM on Oct 18th 2007
333. Correction to 331:
Just beneath line segment graphic, I wrote:
"The left end of the segment is labeled “X does not exist or is false, 100%”
This represents complete 100% confidence or belief in X."
The last sentence there should read:
"This represents complete 100% confidence or belief that X does not exist or is false."
I knew that would happen!!!!
ray at 11:44AM on Oct 18th 2007
334. Yet more lies from the pathological liar known as ray.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:14PM on Oct 18th 2007
335. To Thomas J Gassett:
Below are two separate quotes. The first is what Einstein wrote, which started the rumor that he believed in "God":
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man."
After the fallout from this, he responded with:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Einstein was what can best be described as a pantheist. You should look further into his works. I’ve seen some of his handwritten notes and even knowing German, they are nearly impossible to decipher. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was misquoted often.
Even if he had believed in "God", it would not be enough for me to conclude it must be fact. Even the great minds of history were mistaken at times.
Michele at 6:53PM on Oct 18th 2007
336. *To Knight_of_BAAWA Comment #332:
1 - I went back through all of rays comments, as well as your own, on this particular string. I have not seen any evidence that ray is a liar. I have only seen well thought out comments that make sense, even though I have a different opinion on the ultimate conclusion. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it before you start name-calling.
2 - You strike me as educated and possibly quite intelligent, yet very bitter and angry. Emotion can easily override intelligence, so you might want to acknowledge your aggressive tendencies and spend your time getting to the root cause. If you find the cause, I am sure you can find a solution. If you were standing here by me, I would reach over and give you a big hug. It seems you need it.
3 - As a preemptive strike: I am not a liar, idiot, moron, or stupid... have I forgotten any of your favorite insults? I suppose I will find out before long.
*To ray Comment #330/331
Thank you for the extremely thorough response. I think we have established that we can agree to disagree and there is no precise way to prove our personal beliefs. Although you can define the variables with Math, we have yet to work through the entire equation. I realize it's a fairly anti-climactic finish; however, shall we consider this the end of the debate?
I look forward to the next one. If we started on a subject as heavy as religion, what could possibly be as much fun: Sexual orientation, war, or the death penalty? Maybe we could discuss the possible reasons why KoB is so cranky. Do you think it’s environmental, genetics, or maybe just situational? This may lead to a discussion on why I feel the need to respond and maybe even antagonize, when it might be better just to ignore. I guess that’s one for the therapist. ;)
Michele at 7:56PM on Oct 18th 2007
337. Responding to Michele (#335)
I greatly appreciate your comments and support.
I could provide you some insight into the ongoing pissing contest between Knight and myself, but, it really isn't worth my time or yours.
Hopefully other posters will draw some insights from our comments. Again, you are correct that the lack of clarity in definitions leads to confusion, which is often disquised as disagreement.
Future debate would be welcome although I will have to reduce my time allotment over the next month or so. I have 3 kids in school and I have some impending responsibilities that will demand more of my time.
Stay real. Stay safe. And keep on thinking! :-)
Goodnight.
ray at 11:54PM on Oct 18th 2007
338. To ray:
Good luck with your responsibilities. I have two in school and I completely understand. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the company I work for is hurting for business and I don't have much to do while at work. I still have to be there and lately I've been using the extra time to dig deeper into some of the subjects that interest me. This debate provided some entertainment and reignited my interest in questioning things deeper than whether I will attend the next PTA meeting or what I might make for dinner. I guess moms really don't have to stick to discussing childrearing on the Babycenter bulletin boards. ;)
Michele at 2:15AM on Oct 19th 2007
339. ray,
just stop lying.
Nobody with even half a brain does bother to read your fundamentalist idiocies.
Greetings from Europe.
ekhnaton1 at 8:59PM on Oct 23rd 2007