Imagine if one of the world's leading Christians--say C.S. Lewis a generation ago, or Billy Graham now--were to reject his religious beliefs and become a atheist. It would be big news! The New York Times would be all over it, for sure, and the question would be why a man who has devoted his life to God would now turn against Him? In sum, the focus would be on what were the reasons for the conversion and on what's so bad about Christianity.
Contrast this with the New York Times' approach to the conversion of philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew has been, for the past half-century, the world's leading advocate of atheism. No one has so relentlessly espoused the atheist cause, and no one has been more anthologized and eulogized by the atheist community. Other twentieth-century philosophers, such as Martin Heidegger and Bertrand Russell, were unbelievers but they did not make atheism central to their philosophical work as did Flew. Flew's atheism long precedes that of latecomers like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.
Now, in his early eighties, Flew has rejected atheism and said he believes that God exists. He does not espouse the Christian God, but calls himself a Deist. He says he has a lifelong commitment to following the evidence where it leads, and that new advances in the sciences have shown him that materialism and Darwinism simply cannot account for the world as it is and life as it is. Examining the fine-tuning of the universe and the mind-boggling complexity of the cell (a compexity that evolution presumes but cannot explain), Flew now believes that the design of the universe requires a designer. He gives his reasons in a new book There Is a God which is co-authored with Roy Abraham Varghese.
When something like this happens, the New York TImes goes into mafia-style intellectual hit mode. They selected Mark Oppenheimer of Yale, who visited Flew in England and wrote a long piece in the November 4, 2007 New York Times Magazine suggesting that Flew converted because he is, well, senile. The basic idea is that Flew has lost his mind and can't remember anything, and when Christian apologists like Varghese were nice to him Flew basically surrendered to them and let them write his book.
The only evidence that Flew has lost his mind is that he's 84 years old. A man of 84 naturally loses some of his memory, especially for names, but this does not mean he has lost his marbles. Flew's own writings of the past few years are all entirely coherent and employ sophisticated philosophical vocabulary. While Flew seems to have asked his collaborator Varghese to write a draft of his life story, it was Flew who reviewed and approved the final contents. There is nothing in the Times' article that shows Flew to be incapable of a reasoned change of mind and heart.
I realize that atheists--including those at the New York Times--are embarassed at having to surrender one of their most stalwart champions to theism. Maybe they too should consider following the evidence where it leads? Too closed-minded to consider Flew's arguments, these fellows would much rather belittle the intellectual capacity of the man they once revered. Hell hath no fury like an atheist scorned.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 84)
31. "Came in from the cold?!" It's not cold here in Atheism land. Supposed to be hotter'n hell, according to you folks.
So the guy drank the Kool-aid and didn't come all the way across your toll bridge (Deism). That says nothing.
My buddy stopped hunting deer after 20 years. His choice. Persnal decision.
Means nothing to MY decision to keep doing it.
brandon at 10:13AM on Nov 16th 2007
32. Reply to # 28. Unless the men in your question truly repents of their sins and commits to God and is born-again through the blood of Jesus, neither will make heaven. God does not consider deeds alone, whether they are good or bad deeds. He considers the person's sincerity when that person comes to Him. If Hitler committed suicide and died instantly, as some guess, then he had no time to repent, therefore, according to God's word that taking your own life is an unforgiveable sin, Hitler would not have made it.
God, who Created the Heavens and the Earth and all in and around it, including you, pretty much deserves the praise and glory for it...
Aaron, if a 'Christian' leaves Christianity and follows after islam(which is an ideal, rather than religion) then that person was not a true Christian because when a person is born-again and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, then that person has already known God and Jesus personally and nothing could convince them there is no God. so your theory is moot.
dena at 10:14AM on Nov 16th 2007
33. Good Morning All: I'm back, glad to see the atheist up and about it this morning, getting ready for a brand new day. Glory to GOD for this beautiful day, sun is shinning and the leaves are turning different colors, starting to get chilly cause fall is here definately. So, let's get started, ok. Again Mr.D'Souza another excellent articule about a non-believer finally accepting our GOD and Saviour. Too bad though all his life he could have had that piece and love for his fellow man and worship with others but, sometimes you have to wait until there no other way to turn and you have tried everything to help that deep hurt way down in your soul, then finally you call ABBA, (father) he is there, has always been there waiting for you, he is there now knocking on your heart if you'll just listen. One way or the other God will eventually get your attention. He might not exist for you today or next year or even twenty years from now unless he returns as he has told us he will do. For those who say there is no God do to all that is wrong in the world today, my response is (free choice or free will) whatever, you want to call it. God has been ask to leave our schools, our Government, we don't want him in our lives until there is some kind of horrible tragedy in our lives and being the kind of loving GOD he is he leaves us to our own devices. What happens from there is our fault not his. So, the next time you see some young man or girl kill herself, or you hear of another school shooting then we really have no one to blame but, ourselves. We can't blame GOD not his fault he is leaving us to our own devices to believe in him or not. But, I will leave you with one positive item. Someday, he will come back and everyone of us will see him in his glory and as promised every knee shall bow and every doubt will then be removed that he is indeed LORD OF LORDS and KING OF KINGS. RITA
Rita at 10:16AM on Nov 16th 2007
34. good god, DENA......you don't read very well. First of all, I am merely sarcastically zinging this pathetic train wreck of a blogger.
I didn't say Jesus would hate Jews. I said he would hate DINESH!!!! And I said because he was Jewish, dinesh probably would think he has the capacity to hate. GOOD GOD, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU RESPOND!!
stuart joshua at 10:35AM on Nov 16th 2007
35. Aaron, you raise a valid question, one that a lot of Christians struggle with.
To start with the first part of your question--the good person who helps the homeless I do not believe will go to hell. Many religions and spiritual paths teach that kindness will be rewarded. I think Christians who say "if you don't believe in God or Christ, you're going to hell" distort what Jesus said in John 14. What Jesus means when he says "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father excapt through me", is "If you want to know God, know me--I am God here with you."
Different Christian denominations have differing teachings on the role of good works. Catholics value good works as a sign of faith, Protestants hold that good works will not save you, but it's the relationship with God that saves. I believe God can act through people who don't necessarily believe in him necessarily--look what God did through Pharaoh in the Moses story.
As for the answer to your second and third question--if people who do atrocious acts sincerely repent, even at the last possible minute--the hope that we as Christians cling to is that they will be forgiven. That is the good news in the story of the repentant thief who was crucified along with Jesus. At the very last minute he repented of his crimes and asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom, and Jesus promised that he would. Stalin and Hitler, as far as we know, did not repent of their crimes. But if they had, would they be any different than the repentant thief?
Even devout Christians struggle with this one, because forgiveness is difficult. But if we are to believe that God indeed is loving and merciful, we have to believe that love and mercy is available to EVERYONE--even those who commit atrocious deeds against humanity.
Jennifer at 10:21AM on Nov 16th 2007
36. All you theists already believe in the basic idea behind evolution, you just don’t realize it. I can prove it with one question:
When did wild poodles roam the Earth?
Obviously, they didn’t. Everyone with even a basic education knows that. So where did poodles come from? Some dog breeders wanted a dog that was a certain size and had certain characteristics (white, poofy hair, annoying bark). So, from a litter of pups, they chose the ones that were closest to what they wanted. Then with the next batch, they did the same thing and so on until they had a dog with the characteristics they wanted. That’s how natural selection works – some traits survive and are passed on to the next generation and some aren’t.
Now, the first thing that is going to be screaming in your mind (or maybe your screaming it at the monitor), is that in the above example, it was intelligently designed. In that case it was. My point, though, is that you already accept they underpinnings of how evolution works.
How about a real-world example of how evolution works? Ever hear of drug-resistant bacteria? How do you think they got to be drug resistant? The ones that weren’t killed by the drug survived to pass on there genes to the next generation. The ones that were killed but the drug, didn’t pass on their genes. A mutation that was beneficial to the bacteria (keeping it from being killed by the drug) helped it survive to pass on its genes. Pretty simple stuff, really.
Aaron at 10:25AM on Nov 16th 2007
37. I think the only people who talk about 'darwinism' are fundamentalists. Same with 'atheist'. It's really just a fundamentalist button.
They're up to something, as one might expect.
I have yet to have a person come up to me and identify themselves as an 'atheist', preach to me out of some set of hallowed atheist writings and proclaim that I must realize the great truth this person knows because they are the truth and the light and I must therefore convert to 'atheism' or they'll keep stalking me until I do.
I never turned on a rural am radio station and heard a slavering hate filled atheist shouting for death to gays or people of color, or anyone at all.
Never saw a gang of atheists put on white sheets and ride out and hang people or burn the symbol of atheism on people's front lawns. It's never happened.
Not only has it never happened, I've never heard or read of it happening ever. Not even once.
I've never seen an atheist bookstore or coffee shop, nor an ad for atheism on the side of a bus.
Neither have I seen great costly ornate atheist buildings with gigantic atheist symbols out front and atheist music emanating from within, nor do I ever see screaming babbling television atheists whacking people on the forehead and giving them instant flashes of atheism and ranting about their enemies, the christians.
Nor has any atheist anywhere at any time in my life under any pretext ASKED ME FOR MONEY!
Not outside the grocery store, not at my front door on a saturday at 8 am, not at an airport, not ever anywhere.
That doesn't happen anywhere that I know or have ever heard of. There's no such organization.
Now, 'darwinism' which cultists freely interchange with cosmology - the two subjects that are denied them by their faith -
Darwinism and evolution are terms that are rarely used by anyone but fundamentalists unless it's to refer to fundamentalists.
Darwin has no more to do with modern evolutionary theory than Newton has to do with m-theory, inflation, or other multi-space multi-time models of reality that are currently being defined.
Intelligent design/creationism are simplistic concepts offering no explanation for reality other than magic and superstition.
In fact it's the opposite of science. They claim the 'design' is too complex for explanation, therefore a 'designer' who is even MORE complex designed everything, including the entire universe.
And the 'designer' being more complex than the universe can't exist within it, but since the universe is EVERYTHING, the concept loses its intelligence at that time and becomes a very inept magic show.
I always ask creationists why speciation is so commonplace if all the animals were made by god all at the same time.
Since there is no answer that would suit them, they ignore the question.
Also I want some evidence that the fundamentalists can in some reproducable way measure C at 2 million times what Einstein said it was and what the physical universe has shown us inerrantly that it is.
Again, their magic has no real world answers so they're obliged to ignore the question.
There is an agenda to creationism/intelligent design. Read the 'wedge'.
It is nothing less the destruction of modern constitutional government.
It is their intention to take absolute control of this country, to censor art and literature and outlaw the teaching of molecular biology and cosmology.
Of course this drags the rest of science since the stone age down the toilet with it, but with magic anything's possible so they permit themselves to dissociate from this.
If this dominionist cult gets into power, the country will be a sitting duck for any ambitious nation with 21st century technology if they and their libertarian henchmen don't just sell it outright to whoever's paying.
Their dogma promotes magical ideation, superstition and at some point when it hits Darbyism, suicide.
When this element aspires to govern, they don't intend to share power or consider anything but their own agenda.
They say the kingdom of god is not a democracy, meaning their cult of power hungry human beings is not a democracy, since god isn't going to come down here and run things.
D,Souza's enemy is science and information.
Clif Kuplen at 10:25AM on Nov 16th 2007
38. Why do faith and science necessarily have to contradict or mutually exclude one another? I look at the world around me--I believe God created it, but I can also see how it has evolved? I also know that the Bible doesn't cover things like dinosaurs and other prehistoric plants and animals that we KNOW existed through science. Archaeology is a science that is helping us to learn more about what we learn in the Bible. I think instead of using faith and science as weapons against each other, we need to realize that each discipline answers different questions. Science answers "how?", while faith answers "why?".
Jennifer at 10:32AM on Nov 16th 2007
39. dena, if god wants "unconditional love", maybe he should get a dog - LOL! Humans dont give that!
What would make him deserve it anyway?
ray at 10:36AM on Nov 16th 2007
40. 30. Dena,
You missed the point that Ken was making. He was saying that just because you see a Porsche in all its glory in its final form and you can't explain how it was done, doesn't mean it was poofed into existence just the way you see it. While his point was valid, he didn't explain it in enough detail.
Aaron, I see what you are saying and yes, our ways and means of doing things evolve. In the beginning, there was no technology as we see it today, but we have evolved intelligently, I agree. But at the same time, some are abusing that technology for the wrong reasons. T.V., for example, is sometimes used for the good when used educationally, but also used as a mind-melting vehecle, which viewers may not be aware. There is a lot of dumb crap on, in other words. The internet can either be used to the good or to the worst. It is how we respond to the things that are before us that can help us or hurt us. We have no idea what it was like thousands of years ago and those who lived then would never had imagined what we have been born into, which we mostly take for granted. Evolution of intelligence, as well as unintelligence, I do believe in. But I don't believe we are evolved from monkeys. We are created from the dust in the ground, if you want to call that evolving, according to Genesis. All the elements found in the ground is what we are made of and what our bodies need to survive. There is no scientific way or means the writer of Genesis (Moses) could have known that. This is but one example scientists have concluded is not coincidence. But we can all agree that intelligence evolves.
dena at 10:40AM on Nov 16th 2007
41. The complexity of living organisms is used by the creationists to justify a belief in a god-like "creator". This is a form of reverse engineering and so far no one has come close to understanding the nature and purpose of such an entity. Darwin's theory is the only one to provide an explanation that is consistent with the observed "facts of life" that have been uncovered so far.
It is even harder for a rational person to support the concept of a god who continues to meddle with his/her creation, to influence events and even determine the course of individual lives.
Dave at 10:44AM on Nov 16th 2007
42. Rita,
Read carefully. He accepted GOD, but not your SAVIOR.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:42AM on Nov 16th 2007
43. A man rejects church and god in favor of atheism is supposed to make a splash in the news? If a famous enough man does it publicly it certainly will. I was raised atheist in Russia, but all the atheists I know came from religious backgrounds and quietly rejected them. No one made a big deal, no bright lights or media. One name does come to mind though, Jonathan Edwards. A man who believed with all his heart that god made his victories possible. A theological scholar from vicar family who studied bible extensively suddenly dropped faith. That made a splash. But what I find most interesting about this event is his interviews afterwards.
In an interview in The Times on 27 June 2007[4], Edwards said: "If there is no God, does that mean that life has no purpose? Does it mean that personal existence ends at death? They are thoughts that do my head in. One thing that I can say, however, is that even if I am unable to discover some fundamental purpose to life, this will not give me a reason to return to Christianity. Just because something is unpalatable does not mean that it is not true." Furthermore, in the interview with the Times he also stated "When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God".
There’s no doubt that his faith helped him great deal on the way to his phenomenal achievements. But those achievements were his and his alone. Jonathan Edwards won the competitions not god. And if god did help him to win by maybe making him jump a bit farther (perhaps diminishing force of gravity at the right moment?) would that not be cheating, like steroid use? I have an idea: let’s test athletes for god! In any case I can only applaud a man who rejected faith in imaginary being and started believing into something much greater: himself.
igorvrt at 11:02AM on Nov 16th 2007
44. Mokele,
Then who is GOD if not Saviour, Lord of Lord, Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
Dena,
Great explantations of today's mechanical devices compared with God's creation. YOU GO GIRL. Rita
Rita at 10:49AM on Nov 16th 2007
45. Did you hear about the Christian cult that is hiding out in a cave in Russia waiting for doomsday to come? Ever hear of an atheist group doing something like that?
Oh, that's right, they're not TRUE Christians. TRUE Christians are like Rita -- the have everyone not like them. Wait, wait, wait, Christ wasn't like that. That would make Rita the antithesis to Christ since she hates peoplel.
Aaron at 10:52AM on Nov 16th 2007