I first saw this story posted on a right-wing blog and it was amazing to see the excitement it generated.  By looking at the title of the column and the subsequent comments, one would think that Flew had just been baptized.

IMO we’re seeing a few dynamics at work here.  One is in the way the way that conservatives define god and the other is that Flew, in his twilight years, failing to discover absolute proof that god does not exist, begins to question his assumptions.

When questioned in response to this article, he was asked what he would mean if he ever asserted “god probably exists”? He replied, “I don’t think I will ever make that assertion.”

So why the perceived change of heart?

My one and only piece of relevant evidence (for an Aristotelian God) is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms. - Antony Flew, Dec ‘04

From an atheistic perspective it’s a bit easier, although still disconcerting, to understand Flew’s thought process.  In failing to discover an absolute negative theory of the existence of god, Flew has fallen into a personal, philosophical dilemma.  One we’ve seen here many times, namely ‘If you cannot prove that god does not exist, then the possibility of his existence must be true.’ Remember, we cannot prove that Mr. Smee did not create the universe either.

The last part does not run contrary to atheism but it lends itself more toward gnosticism.  I would imagine, after years in the church and the ministry that I will be faced with a similar dilemma in my waning years.

Two things that Flew makes absolutely clear are that he does not believe in any sort of after-life and that we won’t know his complete thoughts on the subject until his next book is published in 2005.

ellie,

I was just touching on 10 dimensional hyperspace and superstring theory…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp

wolf said: In conclusion to my ramblings, the emergence of “life�? is probably as common as the number of planets that are kind of like ours.  The development of that life into something with the self-awareness to appreciate such things is a much smaller probability.

This is exactly the conclusion of a fascinating book, “Rare Earth- Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe” by Ward and Brownlee.  Of course, this is all speculation at this point, but they make a good case for the rarity of intelligent life, and the good fortune we have here on Earth.  In particular, we are fortunate in having Jupiter.  Why?  Because Jupiter is big enough and close enough to clean up a lot of cosmic debris (meteors, comets) that would otherwise hit the Earth far more frequently, causing mass extinctions so often that evolution would be greatly slowed, if they didn’t wipe out life altogether.

So perhaps Jupiter is the Son God sent to redeem us.  But isn’t Jove the Son of Chronos?  If God is Time, that explains how He can laugh at logic…

I always love the “irreducible complexity” argument of creationists.  What criteria are used to decide if a structure (eye, flagellum, etc) was “designed” or “evolved”? 

Other than saying: “Yup, it sure looks designed to me.”

Currently reading “Evolution” by Stephen Baxter.  A different perspective and a good read.

SG

SG-“Yup, it sure looks designed to me.�?

Otherwise known as failure of imagination.  Fundies should look at the history of the argument from design, starting perhaps with the Greek dynamis, necessary for life, to William Paley, who couldn’t imagine how organisms could be so exquisitely adapted to their environments, to Michael Behe, who has a flagellum fixation: they all posit a God as a rug the unexplainable can be swept under.  But as more and more is explained by science, the “irreducible complexity” (i.e. that which cannot yet be explained) is retreating further and further.

I remember when the eye was the favorite example of IC.  Now that it has been demonstrated to have evolved at least forty times independently, and computer simulations have evolved good eyes with lenses from a flat photosensitive spot in less than 300,000 generations (a geological heartbeat), given conservative assumptions about the speed of selection, most “scientific” creationists are looking at earlier and smaller stuff, such as flagellae.  They fail to learn the obvious lesson from the trend- that IC is rather a result of our (current) ignorance, not evidence for God.

The fact that Flew has had a change of heart, of sorts, is significant primarily because he was one of England’s best known atheists and one of the most active promoters of that viewpoint on that side of the big pond.

The problem is that his position hasn’t shifted all that much so the big victory celebration so many theists seem to be engaged in is kinda silly. Especially for those theists who’ve never heard of him. So it’s certainly a significant admission on his part, but not as significant as it’s being made out to be.

I think it’s telling how desperate some of these folks are for outside validation of a belief system they secretly worry is a fantasy that they get so worked up when a prominent atheists says he thinks that some sort of intelligent being had a hand in getting it started after all. It’s not like he’s the first atheists to ever change his mind and it’s not like he went out and became an ordained minister as a result.

it’s not like he went out and became an ordained minister as a result.

Hey, I resemble that remark. I am an ordained minister - of an ignostic Internet church and I have the PDF to prove it.

That above comment was mine - again. Between her sneakily logging me out and her in, having a bad cold, and no indication who is currently logged in, I seem to be losing this battle. Les, can you change the ownership of the above or delete this and the above comment?

And please add a “you are logged in as” line to the preview page?

Well, from what I understood of Flew’s letter explaining himself, he hasn’t had ANY change of heart.  He just acknowledged that current scientific discoveries could easily be used as supporting evidence both by believers and atheists:

In short, I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me.

From what I’ve seen, Flew’s view seems just to be a reiteration of Kuhn’s argument that evidence underdetermines theory.  It’s just that Flew widen the claim beyond just science and noted that evidence taken without theoretical context doesn’t necessarily guarantee the aptness of either science or religion. 

The choice between faith and skepticism is based on other factors, or at least should be based on other factors.  That’s what it seemed to me that Flew was saying.  Though I’m not particularly familiar with the body of Flew’s work, so I’m speculating from the little bits of his work that I’ve read.  All in all, I think Flew is making a less controversial claim than people think.  Indeed, Kant made a similar argument from the theist perspective back in the 18th century.  Also I think it’s something that most people already knew anyways.  Who doubts that faith is indeed a matter of faith and not a matter of evidence?

P.S.  I also think that Flew makes a similar point to Michael Ruse (whom I referred to in some earlier comment).  He might also be noting something to the effect of: science and religion aren’t necessarily incompatible, though science and some doctrinal points from various religions might not be.  For example, you can’t seriously understand plate tectonics and really believe in a young Earth, unless you accept the further belief that God made the world look older than it is.  Then you would have to believe that God tricks us.  Then you would have to either accept that God is not omnibenevolent, or that somehow being mistaken about the age of Earth is somehow good for us.  That’s a lot of things to have to believe to accept that the world is infact only a few thousand years old.  It seems more reasonable to accept that early Christian theologians made a mistake in their estimation of the age of the planet (indeed, the bible never says how old the Earth is, at least not that I’ve noticed).

This is in response to the earlier question about atheists vs. deists…
What rankles is that everyone assumes that no god means no religion...I am not so sure that all atheists are areligious, they simply don’t believe in God.

Also, to the comment on place holding being theism in disguise:  it’s not.  Place holder could be any sort of explanation, scientific, godly, ungodly, 42, whatever.

SS-that 6,000 year calculation was conjured up in the 1800s or thereabouts by people who went through the Bible and tried to calculate a point of creation from the ages of people listed and the times mentioned.  In other words, even from a christian POV, it’s total bull.

In the seventeenth century, Bishop Ussher established the creation of the Earth as happening on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C., at 9 A.M. if memory serves.  He did this by adding up all the “begots”.

Thanks Zilch, for backing up/clarifying my sorry ass…

I wanna know how he came up with the 9 am.  And is that Greenwich Mean Time, or what??

In the seventeenth century, Bishop Ussher established the creation of the Earth as happening on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C., at 9 A.M. if memory serves.  He did this by adding up all the “begots�?.

Actually, it was Dr. John Lightfoot, of Cambridge University, that appended the time to Ussher’s speculation in 1644.

I wanna know how he came up with the 9 am.  And is that Greenwich Mean Time, or what??

I think he wanted to make sure that god had time for a cup of coffee before going to work.

Yeah, even God has to wait in line at the Starbucks drive-through ...

deadscot: Actually, it was Dr. John Lightfoot, of Cambridge University, that appended the time to Ussher’s speculation in 1644.

I knew there was some controversy I was forgetting… If anyone wants the gory details, check out:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ussher/published_errors.html
But hey, if the Christians can’t even agree about the exact time of Creation, maybe there’s no God after all…

zilch says:

In the seventeenth century, Bishop Ussher established the creation of the Earth as happening on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C., at 9 A.M. if memory serves.  He did this by adding up all the “begots�?.

And a collective cry of “There goes the neighborhood!” was heard among the Babylonians, Egyptians, Jomon (Japanese), Chinese, and Native Americans.

Anyone who believes this shit is too stupid to breathe.

What I want to know is how he got through all the begots!  I tried to read the bible once but I kept falling asleep during Exodus and had to give up the cause.  It was downhill from there

Shana- after Genesis, the OT is pretty much all downhill, although some of the rules in Deuteronomy are rather amusing. My favorite is 22:11- “Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.” I used to sing in a quartet called Linsey-Woolsey, and I expect we’ll sing in Hell together, for having poked fun at the Lord like that.  At least we’ll have a good-sized audience…

“I think it’s telling how desperate some of these folks are for outside validation of a belief system they secretly worry is a fantasy that they get so worked up when a prominent atheists says he thinks that some sort of intelligent being had a hand in getting it started after all.”

I was thinking the same about the atheists who spent the time to post multiple entries to each other on this thread. 

Not sure why you think our discussion here is a form of seeking outside validation. None of us here are anywhere near as worked up about this as some Christians I’ve talked to are. At least a half-dozen True Believers who know I’m an atheist have gone out of their way to mention this news item to me.

Consi, nice try

Only one problem - who is the prominent theist that says that it started without any kind of intelligent being having a hand in it? Did the Pope recant?

Les,

here’s a quote from the ABC News article:

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives.

”I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.”

I would quote the emphasized part to the True Believers^TM… Shouts of PRAISE THE LORD seem premature, if it took Flew a couple of decades to turn from atheist to Deist at 81, a baptism isn’t likely to be in the cards.