Professor Antony Flew, who is famous for his philosophical arguments in favour of atheism, has contributed these tantalising comments to the debate.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Let ... d_Theology
Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology
-
Philosophy Now
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
Re: Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology
I would say that it is not so much the task of theology to explain the origins of life as it is the task of atheistic Darwinians to explain the phenomenon of god and theology.
Re: Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology
It does seem that Antony Flew finally appreciated the necessity for a Source. Not many would be as honest as he was to change his mind after so many years. A welcome exception.You can read Flew's ideas in this interview. Evidence for the eventual unification of science and religion.
http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
r. Benjamin 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?'"
Antony 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.
http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
r. Benjamin 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?'"
Antony 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.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology
We know there's an argument for a metaphysical ontological 'source', Kant called it the Noumenon and that's about all we can say. The rest is waffle.
Re: Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology
Arising wrote:
Little by little we are starting to get to you. Even though you are wrapping your cloak of blind denial more tightly around you, the light begins to enter. One Flew goes and soon another. Waffles will begin to become attractive. What to do? How to block the light? You have a difficult struggle ahead.We know there's an argument for a metaphysical ontological 'source', Kant called it the Noumenon and that's about all we can say. The rest is waffle.
Re: Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology
"We"? Could you clarify, please?Nick_A wrote:Little by little we are starting to get to you.
Well, if by that you mean communicating with people who cannot accept that their understanding of reality may not be The Truth, you're not saying anything that isn't already apparent.Nick_A wrote:Even though you are wrapping your cloak of blind denial more tightly around you, the light begins to enter. One Flew goes and soon another. Waffles will begin to become attractive. What to do? How to block the light? You have a difficult struggle ahead.
Re: Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology
How insulting uwot. Don’t you know that I am God so “we’ includes all my servantsUwot wrote: Nick_A wrote:Little by little we are starting to get to you.
"We"? Could you clarify, please?
“Your Construct” wrote in the OP in the “You are God” Thread on the Philoophy of Mind board
Well if he thinks I am God, who am I to argue? Of course it would be better if cute blondes said this but you can’t have everything. So it won’t be long until those like you and arising agree with Your Construct that I am God and finally put a stop to all these arguments.Have you spent your whole life looking for God? You have finally found him, he is you. Were you raised as a christian, did you question everything and become an atheist? You are about to come full circle. You are God, and I will prove it to you.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology
Is that the royal 'we'?Nick_A wrote:Little by little we are starting to get to you. ...
You have no clue what I'm wrapped in.Even though you are wrapping your cloak of blind denial more tightly around you, the light begins to enter. ...
I prefer Hume.One Flew goes and soon another. ...
Never have been never will thanks[/quote]Waffles will begin to become attractive.
There's nothing to do.What to do?
Sleep-masks seem to work.How to block the light?
Nah! Did all that eons ago. You're the only one I see struggling but no worries your 'God' will take care of your thinking for you.You have a difficult struggle ahead.