Atheist finds 'God' after 50 years Laura SmithSaturday December 11, 2004The Guardian A philosophy professor who has been a leading proponent of atheism for more than 50 years has decided that God may exist after all.
Antony Flew, 81, now believes scientific evidence supports the theory that some sort of intelligence created the universe. But he continues to reject traditional religious ideas of God and especially the idea of salvation after death.
He said: "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." (Briony: Do your research)
He still accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory but doubts it can explain the complexities of the origins of life.
Throughout his career, Flew has expounded the lack of evidence for the existence of God while lecturing at St John's College, Oxford and King's College, London. He said his change of heart had been a gradual process prompted by new scientific research.
Speaking in a new video, Has Science Discovered God?, Flew argues that the 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."
The first indication of his about-turn came in a letter to Philosophy Now magazine, in which he said: "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."
Flew, who is writing an introduction of a new edition of his work, God and Philosophy, said: "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
-------------------------
Yes! I once read in ex-athiest, Lee Strobel's 'Case for Faith' that people who conclude that God and science contradict are mere rookies. The in depth study of science would in fact compel one to the conclusion that there indeed is an intelligent creator.
Oh and I'm not about to start on humans as half aliens as described in 'Red Earth'. You know how I feel about the theory......
I'm looking forward to get my hands on Josh Mcdowell's book on apologetics and Lee Strobel's 'Case for Easter'. So guys, you know what to get me for christmas ya?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Actually if u really read up on the battle of religion vs. science within the tenets of creationism (the origins of earth, lifeforms and the universe), evidence is pretty inconclusive.
There *are* pure scientific hypotheses (which remain as hypotheses) that relate to how a lifeless world starting off with only simple elements and molecules (like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen) can eventually over time evolve into complicated lifeforms like us --- and that without contradicting any current established scientific theories NOR mathematical impossibilities either. heh.
But having said that, to quote a university professor : "it is as impossible to prove that the world was created without a god as it is to prove that we were all placed in this class 3 minutes ago by god with all our memories artificially implanted into our brains"
heh heh.
Thanks Kai. And whoa Max! That's some article you've got there.
I always appreciate a little insight.
So there is a hypothesis that doesn't contradict any current mathematical and scientiful theory. Interesting, but there will be more I assure you. As it has always been in science, oftentimes in the area of the world's creation, conflicting hypothesis carries on its emanation. There'd be another theory to contradict this one and then another one and then another one. So at the end of it all, it's not science vs religion, it's science vs science.
Wish I could tell you I'm neutral, a God-believer only because it makes sense. But no, I'm prejudiced and every question I have, I research in accordance with my beliefs. I welcome arguments, although I'd try to distinguish them.
But then again, in the world of science, you're right that the evidence of the world's creation is pretty inconclusive. We can only prove the failures of scientific hypothesis', yet unable to create one that points us to God. However, one can't be a fair judge when he is only equipped with one sided information. A balance of both religious and scientific documents is necessary.
I am a Christian not because I did my research and weighed its benefits and credibility, I am a Christian by edcounter.
Post a Comment