Atheists/Agnostics ONLY- Has Flew changing to Deism Changed Your Views?

[EvoUK]

This is a strict atheist/agnostic poll- non-theist only.

So, has recent news about Flew changed your mind? Why/Why not?

[SteveF]

Nope. Why would it?

[Kulindrichnus]

So, has recent news about Flew changed your mind?

No.

Why/Why not?

Because I have never heard of him.

K

[SteveF]

Because I have never heard of him.

K
Apparently he was one of the leading proponents of our worldview.

Yup, me neither!

[Cyrus Johnson]

Nope. Why would it?

Indeed, why would it?

I found a couple interesting comments in the ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976) report.

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?"

Ummm, no Tony, it hasn't shown that.

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Why should we find this "assuring"? What does it matter what his personal belief is?

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

Thanks for your input Antony, but Darwiniamn evolution doesn't claim to be able to explain the ultimate origin of life.

[SteveF]

I think if Flew asked 'most biologists' they would contradict his statement. The number of ID biologists is minute.

[Solly]

Interjection for the sake of discussion amongst yourselves:

Would you consider any kind of First Cause hypothesis, or just not one with religious connotations?

Withdraws...

[sylas]

I'd heard of him, but he was never influential. I had previously cited him in a kind of survey of atheistic perspectives as an advocate of the so-called "weak atheism" definition; whereas I am, by this terminology, a "strong atheist". Flew's terminology was "positive" and "negative" atheism.

That is, even while he was an atheist, Flew and I had different perspectives.

I think this switch is very interesting, however, and am curious to know a bit more. I read some material relating to this. I am unsure whether he is advocating a Davies style fine tuning approach, or something a bit more concrete relating to the emergence of living complexity. The two perspectives are philsophically incompatible, IMO. It seems to be more of the latter.

Flew credits Gerald Schroeder and Varghese as being influential for his change of mind; but he does not appear to have a particularly strong grasp of the the whole debate that has cropped up relating to Schroeder in particular. (I don't know anything about Varghese.)

Flew has apparently always relished courteous discussion with those having different views. There is an indication that this will now include exchanges with people who have been critical of Schroeder. I'll be very curious to see what happens. I think it is quite likely that Flew will change his mind again; in which can I'll look forward to reading the spin placed on that by theistic commentators. But it is also likely that he will hold his new deistic position. I don't care about what individuals think; I've always been relaxed about the fact that intelligent folks can have diverse views. I think Flew is the same, and is not likely to be brow beaten into a different perspective.

But I'd like to see something a bit more solid as a reason for adopting deism, beyond the alleged difficulty of the origins of DNA. The appeal to Schroeder suggests to me, at least, that Flew has nothing new to offer, and is basing his switch on material that is already considered to be nonsense in the scientific community.

Cheers -- Sylas

[cavegirl]

This is a strict atheist/agnostic poll- non-theist only.

So, has recent news about Flew changed your mind?
No.

Why/Why not?Anthony Who? Before this I'd never heard of him (and he presumably never of me), nor of this movement they say he's the leader of. But I am interested in what exactly made him change his mind. It is always interesting to learn what events or insights make people swing either way.

cg

[Sacrificial Ram]

Interjection for the sake of discussion amongst yourselves:

Would you consider any kind of First Cause hypothesis, or just not one with religious connotations?

Withdraws...
Any kind of 'first cause' hypothesis is flawed, since it a)) has no evidence of it and b) leads to special pleading. That is with or without a diety thrown in the mix.

[Sacrificial Ram]

No.

Anthony Who? Before this I'd never heard of him (and he presumably never of me), nor of this movement they say he's the leader of. But I am interested in what exactly made him change his mind. It is always interesting to learn what events or insights make people swing either way.

cg
Well, here is an article from Richard Carrier, who is friends with Anthony Flew, and corrosponded with him about the reports.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

[Minnesota]

From the little I read by him he certainly had my respect, but it never amounted to enough to dislodge me from my agnosticism. What interests me most about his change are the particulars of the why. From what I've read, his reason seems more of a cop out than a reasonably justified transformation. Have to wait and see.

[C. D. Ward]

I think that overall this has the same impact as Charles Templeton's deconversion. We didn't see theists jumping ship en masse then and we shouldn't expect to see atheists behaving any differently. Regardless of our stance, it's the evidence & intuition (and maybe the 'ol HG, if you believe :wink:) that drive us toward one conclusion or the other and not the actions of individuals...

[Seasanctuary]

I'd not heard of him either. My views are personal and not derived from an authority figure.

Heck, if LakeGeorgeMan converted to Christianity I'd be MUCH more likely to reconsider than for this Flew fellow. I know LGM's reasons and his perspectives and they very much jive with my own.

(Of course, I'd suspect a trick first off.)

[Soundsurfr]

I had never heard of Flew, but I have this sudden irresistable urge to believe in the tooth fairy!

[Gilgaron]

I hadn't heard of him either. The ID stuff isn't convincing to me, and it appears to be the basis of his tentative deity. If I read more arguments regarding why he switched perhaps it would be more influential.

[EvoUK]

Would you consider any kind of First Cause hypothesis, or just not one with religious connotations?

Well, there is actually very little difference between atheism and deism. Your "average" atheist (I'm generalising here guys, bear with me) is most likely to be "strong" atheist towards defined gods- Zeus, Vishnu, God etc- and "weak" atheist towards undefined, deistic gods- those gods which started the big bang and just left it, or was consumed in doing so etc.

As weak atheism is for all intents and purposes atheist agnostic, it is quite easy to imagine a small step to accepting a deist explanation for something we do not understand yet. God of the gaps argument? Absolutely, however, it's enough for many.

Speaking for myself, however, I'm perfectly happy with the agnostic view towards "started" the big bang, or what produced the first life. I have heard many plausable naturalistic hypothesises for both of these (especially abiogenesis), however, I accept that it's unlikely I'll ever find out in my lifetime.

I am just aware of the fact that everything we used to know nothing about has ended up having a naturalistic explanation- and I don't see any reason why this time should be any different.

[Archimedes]

I had never heard of him either. For a leading proponent of my worldview he sure kept low profile...

[BeHereNow]

I've never read Flew, though I have heard him lauded by others. The effect his change in position has caused in me is that I'm encouraged by an atheist philosopher who is still willing, at age 81, to change his stance. That's an admirable example to set.

As far as my "beliefs" ... nothing anyone does or believes will affect how my brain processes information. I'm not even sure if we have a choice in what we believe.

[zorathruster]

I have read Flew a few years ago. If you read his clarification of what he now espouses you will see that his issue is the inability of science to explain the emergence of life. He is a far stretch from a God of revelation but he is getting old and needs to finally form a closed system that explains all of his world. Because life appears to have no self bootstrapping capability, Flew has aquiessed to allowing a Deistic type God to get the ball rolling.

[Jake]

Never heard of him. Best of luck to the guy, I hope he's happy and intellectually fulfilled.

Mind you, anyone who starts making 'scientific' arguments for faith in supernatural agents generally sets alarm bells ringing. So he cant imagine how abiogenesis kicked off; that says more about his lack of knowledge about abiogenesis than it does about the intervention of a God/Gods in the process.

It could have been God/Gods, is that an excuse to stop looking?

[Lazy Agnostic]

I know LGM's reasons and his perspectives and they very much jive with my own.
Jibe not jive. A very common error.

[Seasanctuary]

Jibe not jive. A very common error.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

...is it also "jibe turkey?" :wink:

[Nicholas]

Never heard of him before this, and wouldn't have changed my mind if I had. I'm not really sure I would respect someone who changed their mind simply because a famous person did so, in my opinion that would seem to show that they never really thought about it in the first place.

[blackthorne]

In a word: no. In several: It shouldn't, really. At least if his reason for doing so is based on the type of reasoning that's so often (and rightfully) derided in the Naturalism forum. But I cut him slack for being really old I guess. I always held an admiration for his work but didn't care too much when I heard about this. It was amusing (and mind-numbingly stupid) to hear about J.P. Moreland calling Flew's "deconversion" evidence for anything, but this kind of news is only slightly more interesting than knowing how many inches the grass grows a year on my front lawn.

[EvoUK]

but this kind of news is only slightly more interesting than knowing how many inches the grass grows a year on my front lawn.

Props for this line- it deserves a clap.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

...is it also "jibe turkey?" :wink:No: it's jive turkey.

[rach12]

Nope. Don't care what Flew, or anyone else for that matter, says about their personal beliefs.

If I ever again believe in a god, it won't be because I couldn't find a scientific explanation for something. It will be because I feel it in my heart or see god for myself.

[Sacrificial Ram]

As of this post, 21 voting, and not one is remotely influneced by Flew.

[EvoUK]

sacrificial ram- I didn't really expect anything else to be honest. The only ones making a big deal out of it are christian theists- oddly enough, given Flews views on christian theism.

[Seasanctuary]

sacrificial ram- I didn't really expect anything else to be honest. The only ones making a big deal out of it are christian theists- oddly enough, given Flews views on christian theism.
There's a major tendency for Christians to divide against those who agree most closely with them...and stand united when someone who disagrees by quite a lot steps in the room.

A bunch of Christians in the room, and a Catholic is Satan.

An Atheist walks in and suddenly they're ready to canonize a Deist.

[Sacrificial Ram]

There's a major tendency for Christians to divide against those who agree most closely with them...and stand united when someone who disagrees by quite a lot steps in the room.

A bunch of Christians in the room, and a Catholic is Satan.

An Atheist walks in and suddenly they're ready to canonize a Deist. Nothing unites like the 'enemy'. Of course, the <insert denomination here>
aren't True ChristansTM

[Kulindrichnus]

He is a far stretch from a God of revelation but he is getting old and needs to finally form a closed system that explains all of his world.

EXACTLY. well put.

K

[Sacrificial Ram]

EXACTLY. well put.

K
Except, of course, he has recently proclaimed, despite the objections to the opposite about his attutide towards I.D. , he is still an atheist.

[Zeluvia]

He accepted the concept of a diety, but not a theistic one....there is a HUGE difference there...

[beeblebrox]

Flew who? I also had never heard of this guy. Was he supposed to be my leader? Amazing no one mentioned it to me. Regardless of what twisted logic his brain has seen fit to process, mine remains unchanged.
He is still not a theist in any regular sense of the word, but I certainly don't see how his "creator" gets created...and that creator gets created...ad infinitum. When did he forget this simple rule? It always leaves something much more complex to explain.

Beeble

[Archimedes]

Flew who? I also had never heard of this guy. Was he supposed to be my leader? Amazing no one mentioned it to me. Regardless of what twisted logic his brain has seen fit to process, mine remains unchanged.
He is still not a theist in any regular sense of the word, but I certainly don't see how his "creator" gets created...and that creator gets created...ad infinitum. When did he forget this simple rule? It always leaves something much more complex to explain.

Beeble
I don't know what Flew thinks about this, but to me the answer is obvious: if one were to conclude that DNA could not evolve by means of natural processes, that does not imply that nothing could ever evolve. It's the same thing with panspermia, that even if Earth in particular was not likely cradle for life it doesn't mean that life couldn't have originated somewhere else.

Also, since a lot of posters here have never even heard of Flew (myself included), what should we conclude from this? Are atheists ignorant of their own belief system?