Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 229 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
11/20/19 02:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Topic Options
#24152 - 11/04/07 12:35 PM Science does not lead to Atheism (or support it).
Socrates2007 Offline
Member

Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 46
Anthony Flew, after being a leading atheist for 50 years has decided that current scientific knowledge presents an overwhelming case that what we see could only have arisen as the result of a guiding intelligence.

His very lucid book, 'There is a God' sets out his journey.

In an interview he recently said -

Wiker: You say in 'There is a God', that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial…to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself " 'Can you hear me now?'"

Flew: "There were two factors in particular that were decisive. 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. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion."


So much for the atheist argument that science leads to atheistic materialism. It is only Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens who are so dogmatic and fundamental in their seething anger that they cannot see where the evidence is truly leading.

The great deception of the Twentieth Century was that we can get 'mind from mud' by happy accident. The Twenty-First Century will show how much of a fantasy the idea is.


THE GAME IS OVER FOR ATHEISTS AND WE ARE SEEING THE DECLINE OF ATHEISM AS AN INTELLECTUALLY COHERENT EXPLANATION OF LIFE.

Thank you SCIENCE!!!!

Top
.
#24154 - 11/04/07 12:44 PM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support it). [Re: Socrates2007]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Not sure why you put this in both forums. Flew recanted his recantation. Science doesn't say anything about the existence of God. However, as we learn more about our universe, we are very slowly peeling back the onion.

Religionists want to associate their opinions with science. "You can KNOW the existence of God because we don't understand X and therefore you MUST acknowledge that God did X." (The argument from design is argument from ignorance.) As we peel back each layer, the impression in the minds of those who were misled by the initial argument is that there is no longer any reason to believe. However, they are in error. It was never a good argument to begin with.

Top
#24155 - 11/04/07 06:50 PM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Socrates2007 Offline
Member

Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 46
Where has he recanted?

His book, 'There is a God' was published on the 23rd October 2007 and he has since given interviews (as per the quote) that support his views that God exists.

The atheistic community has tried to discredit him, including Dawkins, by saying he has become fuddled. His book and recent interviews show he is clearly not lacking in lucidity. He has come to a reasoned conclusion that the universe can best be explained by intelligent design.

He spent 30 years defending atheism and the last 20 gradually realising that the science leads to a creating intelligence.

But let's just write of someone with the intellect of Flew because as you say, 'Science doesn't say anything about the existence of God'. I agree with him, it does.

Scientists invoke multiple universe theories to do away with the need for a creator. It is hypocrisy of the highest order. Materialistic Science will let nothing into the argument unless it is open to scientific examination, but they will drop that principle in a second when they want to add a philosophical devise such as the Multiverse concept into their dogma.


The argument you use ('God of the Gaps'), is a straw man argument and indicates you do not really understand what is being argued. Certainly nothing as basic as 'we don't understand what makes stuff happen so it must be God'.

I am not accusing you of dishonesty, but where has Flew recanted his theism?

He is an embarrassment to the current paradigm and I can see why you want to get him out of the picture.


Edited by Socrates2007 (11/04/07 08:37 PM)

Top
#24156 - 11/04/07 09:15 PM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: Socrates2007]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Reasonable question.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html

Apparently his conversion was not to theism, but to weak deism.

However, I tracked this down and the situation is like this:
His recantation was half-hearted. Flew is not a scientist, btw, but a philosopher.

In private conversations, he admitted he was misled in the only 'evidence' supporting his conversion - unfortunately, he won't give his permission for those letters to be published.

In any event, Flew's opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

Top
#24158 - 11/04/07 11:00 PM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Socrates2007 Offline
Member

Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 46
Flew is certainly a Deist, but is closer to being a Theist than you think:

"Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe."

Full interview here:

http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

His recantation is certainly not half hearted...hence the book 'THERE IS A GOD' and his recent interviews that are unequivocal.

Talkorigins have cited 'private conversations'. But in fact there are three reasons that Flew has admitted the existence of God.

As for him being irrelevant. Of course you would say that. You would not, of course, have been saying that when for thirty years he was saying that science lead to atheism and the burden of proof was on the theists. Typical atheist ploy...he is irrelevant because he disagrees.


"Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary."


"Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence."

See what he says...it is not relevant that he is a philosopher because all inferences scientists make about the metaphysical are philosophical conclusions.

This is the crime of the materialistic scientist...he/she makes philosophical conclusions from the scientific evidence when they say there is no God. Dawkins and others clearly make this mistake. You apparently do not. Good for you.

Top
#24160 - 11/05/07 12:48 AM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: Socrates2007]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Anthony Flew is irrelevant. I have said that even when he was an atheist - for the same reason that I now say that much of what Daniel Dennett says is irrelevant - and he's STILL and atheist.

I'll grant that his waffling has not ended in re-recantation. Nevertheless, his reasons for deism are not reasonable and using him still amounts to argument from authority.

Top
#24163 - 11/05/07 01:36 AM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Socrates. I'm still very interested in reading any links you might be able to provide explaining what role any Intelligent Designer had in overseeing our evolution from Australopithecus. I've never seen any ID explanation for the process. Surely for ID to be accepted in any way by anyone it must be able to explain this most basic aspect of our species' history. Or does ID simply rely on the theory of negativity: "life couldn't have evolved because it wouldn't display the complexity it does if it hadn't been created".

Top
#24173 - 11/05/07 11:02 PM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Socrates2007 Offline
Member

Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Anthony Flew is irrelevant. I have said that even when he was an atheist - for the same reason that I now say that much of what Daniel Dennett says is irrelevant - and he's STILL and atheist.

I'll grant that his waffling has not ended in re-recantation. Nevertheless, his reasons for deism are not reasonable and using him still amounts to argument from authority.


Your statement appears a touch arrogant. He is someone who has spent 50 years examining the scientific evidence. Are you saying that only scientists can make relevant statements on the metaphysical application of science?

I may be arguing from authority...but he is an eminent authority. All you have done is call him irrelevant without understanding the arguments underpinning his decision. At least he has the courage to honestly go where he sees the evidence leading...and it is said that the religious are closed minded.

Like Flew, I can have it any way. Pure evolution, ID, Creationism. The last is obviously false...the first doesn't stand up anymore and the second seems reasonable. This, added to fine tuning etc. leads to a guiding intelligence.

You do Flew a grave disservice when you dismiss him so arrogantly. Is your intellectual capacity and knowledge so much greater than Flews. I doubt it.

Top
#24174 - 11/05/07 11:08 PM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Socrates2007 Offline
Member

Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
Socrates. I'm still very interested in reading any links you might be able to provide explaining what role any Intelligent Designer had in overseeing our evolution from Australopithecus. I've never seen any ID explanation for the process. Surely for ID to be accepted in any way by anyone it must be able to explain this most basic aspect of our species' history. Or does ID simply rely on the theory of negativity: "life couldn't have evolved because it wouldn't display the complexity it does if it hadn't been created".


Terry. You could of course try Google. But you may want to explain why this is so much of a sticking point for you. I don't see why.

Top
#24175 - 11/05/07 11:23 PM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Socrates2007 Offline
Member

Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
I'll grant that his waffling has not ended in re-recantation.


What?

How can you just label his work 'waffling'.

Do you realize how small minded this makes you look?

Probably not.

Top
#24177 - 11/06/07 01:49 AM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: Socrates2007]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"How can you just label his work 'waffling'."
Do you know what waffling means? I label not his work waffling, but the sequence of statements he's made. First he's an atheist, then he's a deist, then he says (even if in private) that he was misled, and now he's back to asserting his belief.

"Do you realize how small minded this makes you look?"
I realize that it makes it appear that I don't worship personalities. I realize how difficult this must appear to some religionists who, because their entire 'philosophy' rests on unjustified assertions from unqualified authorities, cannot fathom that there are those who base their opinions on evidence and reason alone.

Top
#24182 - 11/06/07 09:23 AM Re: Science does not lead to Atheism (or support i [Re: Socrates2007]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Socrates wrote:

"you may want to explain why this is so much of a sticking point for you."

I was under the impression that followers of Intelligent Design claim humans are the product of a designer. The problem is that surely once you concede humanity is a product of evolution any designer, intelligent of otherwise, is no longer necessary.

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.