« I teach you ... the moustachio | Main | Doggy Style (stylus caninus) »
Flew abjures atheism
I find this very interesting indeed - noted British philosopher Antony Flew (one of my "mentors from afar") has now come out for a kind of deism.
I've always thought that the argument from design is the strongest "motive of credibility" for theism. Flew seems to agree, finally viewing it as the tipping-point:
'There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.
'Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"'
I wonder how the argument would be affected if one didn't view life as something that had to originate (that had to be explained in terms of prior causes), but was rather the fixture of an eternal cosmos?
December 9, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834205dc953ef00e55032c0c18834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Flew abjures atheism:
» Argument from Design, Two from limitedinc
LI has a different take on the argument from design. Our argument depends on two things: how one interprets a “motive of credibility,” and what exactly the argument from design is all about. [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 14, 2004 10:38:19 AM
Comments
Your final paragraph seems a lot like what Carl Sagan (a/k/a "Butt-Head Astronomer") concluded in "Cosmos", through the application of Occam's Razor to the question of creation.
Posted by: Aaron at Dec 9, 2004 2:33:36 PM
But - But- But ...
Well, on balance, I kinda like being likened to Carl.
I recently relistened to an audio-book of "The Demon Haunted World," which was a good "read," indeed.
What about El Moustachio?
Posted by: Paul Craddick at Dec 9, 2004 3:22:56 PM
I've concluded that a polite indifference to the existence of deities is the most sensible approach. The deities themselves, should one or more exist, would appreciate a creation who minded his own business. It also never does any harm to overlook the solecisms, and here much of mankind qualifies, committed by others.
Posted by: Harry at Dec 11, 2004 2:22:24 PM
It is weird that Flew is getting media attention. Wow, I never knew the conversion of the odd philosopher would interest tv. I've been feeling a little piety lately myself -- do you think I should call up the local station? I might be willing to cut a deal where I convert "live." Conversion, however, to a deity of my choosing.
Posted by: roger at Dec 12, 2004 9:26:01 AM
ps -- Since Flew is conceding to the theistic impulse, I wonder how many gods he is going to take up worshipping. Myself, I like the system the Epicurean outlines in Cicero's On the Gods:
Though these speculations of Epicurus were too acute, and their exposition too subtle, for every one to be able to appreciate them, still my confidence in your intelligence leads me to state them with less fulness than the subject requires who could not only bring obscure and highly recondite questions before his mind’s eye, but positively deals with them as though they were lying in his hands—that the essence and nature of the gods is such that, in the first place, it is perceived by mind and not by sense, and that it does not possess what we may call solidity, or maintain an unvarying self-identity, like the bodies which on account of their compactness he calls στερέμνια.1 His account is that through the images being perceived owing to their similarity and their passage before us, when an infinite series of very similar images is formed from innumerable atoms and streams towards us, our mind, intently fixed and concentrated upon these, arrives with the utmost joy at the conception of a blessed and immortal nature. And this mighty power of infinity, which so well deserves to be much and heedfully contemplated, must needs be conceived of as so constituted that each part in it is balanced by its equivalent, according to what Epicurus calls σονομία, or equal distribution, the result of which distribution is that for a given number of mortal beings there is a no less number of immortal, and that if the agencies which destroy are innumerable, those which preserve must be also without limit."
Everything getting its own counterpart God seems about right to me -- I am, after all, an unaplogetic advocate of the welfare state!
Posted by: roger at Dec 12, 2004 12:06:23 PM
i always get slightly nauseous when contemplating origins and such, like i'm peering over the edge of a vast chasm supported only by a thin wire.
i tend to agree with harry, though. me and the god/s have and understanding: i don't meddle in their affairs and they don't mine. so far so good, although there was that one time i slipped and broke my foot on some ice. i could have sworn i felt somebody give me a little nudge.
nice blog.
Posted by: cereal breath at Dec 14, 2004 2:03:02 PM
Speaking of conversion... I was an athiest from
3-22, and during this time I felt a lot of pride in that decision. I think that had a lot to do with a life of suffering and no one being there to spare me. When I turned 21, I moved to Hawaii and suddenly life didn't seem so dark and bleak anymore. I'm sure it had a lot to do with the whole paradise setting. Suddenly, I started to wonder about God. How couldn't you when you are surrounded by such beauty? It was then I thought I would reread the Bible from a scientific perspective. I concluded that much of it had to be viewed from a historical and symbolic POV. I didn't really "start believing in God again" immediately. What happened was that I decided that I just didn't have enough evidence either way. At that time I decided the best thing to do was to be agnostic. During that time, I met someone who I am convinced is "of satan". Before this, I thought everyone was mostly good, and if not, they were just mislead. But my discovery of paradise, pure evil, 4 near death experiences, scientific revelations in biblical discovery (Noah's ark, etc.), plus the discovery of the BIBLE CODE (software) that has predictive value, and watching shows about people who came back from the dead, I have changed my mind. Paul, this is why I didn't write or call you again. I thought you wouldn't like me anymore because I had "switched sides". I didn't want to have a debate about it or be scoffed. When you find yourself on your death bed, all you have are your hopes and dreams. I guess they are what you make of them. Did you see the Omega Code? It explains the Bible Codes. I found a lot of things about myself, family, friends, world events, past and future in it - and that's when I really started believing that some thing (God, which to me is just energy/ intelligent life force) exists. I hope you don't black list me now! :)
Posted by: rebekah at Dec 16, 2004 1:57:23 AM
No, no, no "blacklisting" here - we're a merry bunch here, a motley crew of many crazy creeds, inane ideologies, etc. I mean, look at the nuts who comment here - and I'm the nuttiest of all, by a longshot. I'm lucky these guys tolerate me ... This is a mutual castigation society, anyhow.
I really dislike militant atheism - I'm not really interested in arguing someone out of their belief in "God." That's my idiosyncracy, inconsistency, whatever. Too many worms in that can to address, anyhow; we believe things for a variety of reasons, which are difficult to arrange on a single plane of argumentation.
So, fear not :-)
Posted by: Paul Craddick at Dec 17, 2004 11:16:28 PM
Thank you for your sensibility, acceptance, and understanding :)
Posted by: rebekah at Dec 21, 2004 4:18:04 AM