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 7 of 84)
91. No, it can't be talk-to-type. "Thru" would be "Through" and "Judgement" would be "Judgment".
Mokele Mbembe at 12:49PM on Nov 16th 2007
92. Dena: "Please write something intelligent next time"
Ha Ha Ha. LMAO. Looking at pot calling kettle black. What 'theories' are you espousing? Nonsense dredged out of a book of fables. I've been posting for weeks on this blog, plenty of theories posted. I've just been reading your junk religious bullshit today, and felt like responding.
It's JUNK and doesn't deserve an 'intelligent response'
Linda at 12:49PM on Nov 16th 2007
93. Dinesh, please stop these mindless pluggings of your book. I used to enjoy reading your blog; now I just check up every few days to see if you've gotten over yourself.
Obviously not.
Jack at 12:52PM on Nov 16th 2007
94. Mokele,
Didn't anyone ever tell you that there is only one perfect person and that he is in heaven. I will not lower my standards as you hope I will and you can come back with all the insults that you please however please stick to the debate at hand. You cannot come up with one good rebuttal on a very important topic. All you ever seem to do is one liners; and that's getting old. Please display a little more interesting questions and don't worry about me because I think I'm getting my point across loud and clear. Thank you for your interest anyway. Rita
Rita at 12:55PM on Nov 16th 2007
95. 83. Dena, it is not only through the parent's actions and teaching that children learn, but also through their inaction to supress the bad tendancies. A parent can teach their child all their life not to steal, but if the child isn't reprimanded for stealing, then the child will keep stealing. So, therefore, I stick to my previous statement that if my child ever grows up to be a bad person, then I take responsibility for being a bad parent.
John Mayoral at 12:38PM on Nov 16th 2007
John, in today's society, it is getting harder and harder to reprimand children because of stupid laws being passed that says you cant. We live in a me, me, me society and children are killing parents, parents killing children, people using children as human sex toys then throwing them away as disposable lighters. Why do you think the world is going crazier and crazier and people getting dumber and dumber? Because satan knows he has but a short time to deceive and create chaos before Jesus comes again. No matter how well you teach your child, you are not responsible. Frankly, I believe you are keeping the argument to discredit God, which I do believe in. God gave us instructions. If we choose to ignore them, it is our fault and not His, BOTTOM LINE.
dena at 12:58PM on Nov 16th 2007
96. When Christ returns the dead in Christ shall rise with a brand new body. Where are those old bodies right now (DUST). Get you info right before opening mouth inserting foot. Rita
Aren't you supposed to say 'Hocus Pocus' first.. or 'Presto' or 'Alakazam!'?
First of all that's not 'INFO', that's someone's delusional version of imaginary events, which you have adopted despite all the warning signs of the psychoses of the irrational nature of religious belief.
Nothing you hasve said in any of these threads with regard to God or Jesus are true, any more than rubbing a certain lamp and saying a certain phrase will produce a genie that will grant you wishes.
You are truly a lost soul using a specious belief in God, in an attempt to compensate for all the other shortcomings in your life.
fabio at 1:04PM on Nov 16th 2007
97. Ken, your comment (#9) shows that you understand God and his plan perfectly, yet you still don't believe it? Hope you enjoy Cuba.
Tom at 1:08PM on Nov 16th 2007
98. 91. Dena: "Please write something intelligent next time"
Ha Ha Ha. LMAO. Looking at pot calling kettle black. What 'theories' are you espousing? Nonsense dredged out of a book of fables. I've been posting for weeks on this blog, plenty of theories posted. I've just been reading your junk religious bullshit today, and felt like responding.
It's JUNK and doesn't deserve an 'intelligent response'
Linda at 12:49PM on Nov 16th 2007
LINDA, THANK GOODNESS, BECAUSE YOUR RESPONSE IS NEVER INTELLIGENT ANYWAY. AND BY THE WAY, WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE?
dena at 1:11PM on Nov 16th 2007
99. Rita,
It was a serious question and no one ever tries to answer it. I have already had my say about today's topic, and I don't feel the need to repeat myself all the time. And when do I throw around insults? I've deliberately insulted Zeh, but I think that's it, and he totally had it coming.
Mokele Mbembe at 1:13PM on Nov 16th 2007
100. Fabio,
Don't think I would but, hey you go for it. Just remember that when the sky's start opening and a King comes, riding in on a White Horse, that will be the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, you can ask him then. If you not to busy running for the hills or if your still on this earth cause brother with everything I believe that day will come, I just hope that your ready for it. Rita
Rita at 1:14PM on Nov 16th 2007
101. This White Horse thing's new to me. What's its name? Is it a boy or a girl? Does it have 4 legs, or 8 like Odin's horse Sleipnir? Is it a unicorn? Is the horse a cloud? Why does God need a horse to get around? Is it his pet? Horses are great companions, amazing creatures!
Mokele Mbembe at 1:19PM on Nov 16th 2007
102. "One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxs
Tragically, this only shows an unfamiliarity with modern physical science. That he cut off at einstein shows that. That's like putting a great epic novel down after the first few pages.
In a multiverse with more than one time dimension or one where time and spatial dimensions have a mathematical integrity that cannot be felt or intellectualized, there is no concept of 'beginning' and 'end'.
These are concepts that are hardwired into us evolutionarily as was our initial observation that the world was flat, etc. but what we sense and what may be described which is beyond our senses yet put to use is the validity of science.
There would be no compressed files without fractatlity, or lasers without quantum mechanics, or pet scans without positrons, or immunology without speciation.
The poor man just resigned too quickly.
There may be an inevitibility to chemical life.
It seems that self replicating molecules can come about from purely physical environments and nothing stops them from becoming more and more complex.
The lichens at the bottom of the food chain eat non living rocks and turn them into organic creatures, so the biological evidence of the non living becoming the living, the increase of the biomass over what we perceive as time is certainly a locally observed progression that may be as a result of the laws of physics of this universe.
Years ago in reading inflationary theory, I happened upon the idea that multiverses were also subject to selection.
if our gosh numbers weren't what they were on inception (big bang or big through or whatever) our particular universe could have come out a number of different ways that would not support the chemical life we're familiar with.
In extreme cases, the dimensionality and space and time would be incomprehensible.
So even in universes there may be evolution and selection.
I find a great deal more hope and discovery and validation of humanity and it's place in the multiverse with the advance of science.
With religion it's just the opposite. All they preach is failure, ignorance and oblivion. I can't get into death cultism.
Clif Kuplen at 1:19PM on Nov 16th 2007
103. Clif Kuplen
You just overruled one of this centuries most prominent and adroit (former) atheists on a supposed "lack of knowledge".
Where is the empirical evidence for your “multiverses”?
Or are they merely "faith-based"?
Fitz at 1:32PM on Nov 16th 2007
104. Multiverse is still all theoretical and won't be testable for a long long time.
Exactly how complex does something have to be before you throw your hands up and say "Too complex, a Creator must have done it"?
Mokele Mbembe at 1:35PM on Nov 16th 2007
105. Dinesh. WTF? I thought you had a basketball game to play?
lucretius at 7:26PM on Nov 16th 2007