Sunday, November 14, 2010

Sunday Quote: Antony Flew on Belief - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted an interesting quote from Anthony Flew: Anthony Flew was one of the foremost atheistic philosophers of the 20th Century. If he can look at the evidence showing that the universe was intelligently designed and that there was a designer. I'm not saying that he became a Christian but at least admitting that there is a God was a great first step.
"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science."
Sunday Quote: Antony Flew on Belief - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

26 comments:

  1. This is the more important quote.

    "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."

    Given what the definition of the Aristotelian/Spinoza's god, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist that actually disagrees.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My point is "god" isn't the right word for Aristotle or Spinoza's god. Language is a bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Been following some of your recent posts and an upcoming an event was shared with me last week that I thought you may be interested in & may want to pass along. March 12, 2011 a simulcast called The Case for Christianity is taking place that will address many issues raised by Christian apologetics. Led by Lee Strobel (former Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune) & Mark Mittelberg, all of the most avoided questions Christians don't like to answer or even discuss. Both are authors of extremely intriguing books, I encourage you to check them out as well as the simulcast in March. Definitely worth the time! Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ryan, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Agreed, a distinction needs to be made between the God of the Bible and other understandings of god. So? Flew (as far I understand) never agreed that the Bible or the Qur'an are true. Neither did he endorse the God of Aristotle or Spinoza. He only agreed that someone fine-tuned and intelligently designed the universe. That's more than you got.

    lesli, thanks for the announcement!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Flew had a better understanding than you do now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maybe. Maybe he had a better understanding than you too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thing is I agree that the the universe was designed as he did. you reject that. Therefore if he could have a better understanding than me but mine is still better than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, sure it’s logical, given your presuppositions. But anything can be logical, given the right presuppositions. An argument must be logical, but a logical argument isn’t necessarily true.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's the problem, really, both of our positions are logical, personally, I feel observational science supports my presuppositions and undermines many of yours.

    I think this is why apologists overstress that their cases are logical. It doesn't really mean much.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know you think observational science supports your presuppositions. But it does not undermine mine at all. Miracles, by definition, are not repeatable or can be called on demand. Therefore observational science cannot be be used to explain them. Nor can it disprove them.

    I give more weight automatically to a logical argument than an illogical argument. So should you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I give more weight automatically to a logical argument than an illogical argument. So should you.

    I'm pretty sure I just said that. See: “An argument must be logical, but a logical argument isn’t necessarily true.”

    As for miracles, you have to resort to silly explanations like "daemons" or the like to "explain" miracles outside your religion so it's really just silly. If you don’t resort to silly explanations, then you hold a double standard.

    On the one hand you have observational science with undermines your presuppositions and other presuppositions you hold (like miracles) one can only reasonably be agnostic.

    We are all nearly infinitely ignorant of how the universe works or its origins, but I still think you are far more leaky epistemological boat.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Should be "you are in the far more leaky epistemological boat".

    ReplyDelete
  15. If miracles are true then that opens the door to the existence of Demons. The Bible more than explains the experiences outside of my worldview. Ever read Deuteronomy 13?

    Given all that I more than think my "epistemological boat" is way more sound than yours as it takes you to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, your arguments are circular. Get out of the circle and commit to Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That was another "I know you are but what I am" comment Marcus. Just FYI.

    You used the bible to support the bible. Can you show where I made a circular argument?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I didn't argue that the Bible is correct (although I know it is) I only pointed out what it says.

    You asserted that I "have to resort to silly explanations like 'daemons' or the like to "explain" miracles outside your religion so it's really just silly. If you don’t resort to silly explanations, then you hold a double standard. "

    But you didn't show why demons are unreasonable or how I am employing any "double standard" when it comes to other religions. You circular argument is:

    There are no miracles or demons because there are no miracles and demons. Where is your proof? At least I can point out what the Bible says. Whether is true or not is another question entirely that what I referred to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't have to show why daemons are an unreasonable explanation. You do, and an ancient text doesn't cut it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Until you can show that demons are unreasonable, you are making a baseless presupposition. Either provide evidence or say you don't know if they exist or not. You brought up demons remember? I didn't. You said they were unreasonable. You should prove why you can say that. The text I referenced doesn't even mentions demons. Time for you to put up some evidence or admit that you are making an assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tell you what, I'll continue to assume daemons don't exist until I'm proven otherwise.

    James Randi's got a cool million bucks for you if you can prove me wrong. It's interesting that no one's been able to collect...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks for admitting your assumption that which you have no proof for....no wonder you are so confused about what faith is.

    ReplyDelete